Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8889279" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm happy to be corrected, especially by [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] if he thinks I'm getting this wrong.But here's my take.Suppose I ask you to look after my house on the weekend while I'm away. You ask "Is it over if I have a few friends over on Saturday evening?" and I reply "Sure!"Now I have licensed you to be on my land and in my house. And I have authorised you to license your friends - ie to create sub-licences.Suppose my plans fall over: I get sick, and come back earlier than planned, on Saturday evening. I come in and say "Sorry everyone, I'm contagious and need to rest, you'll have to all go home." I've terminated your licence, and also the sub-licences. This also illustrates that the difference between a licence and a sub-licence is not their subject matter (for both you and your friends, the licence has the same subject matter - ie hanging out in my house) but their mode of creation - you dealt directly with me, whereas your friends didn't, they dealt only with you in circumstances where I had vested you with an appropriate legal power.Relating this to the OGL v 1.0/1.0a:The argument that WotC can revoke vis-a-vis Matt Finch is based on an analogy of the contractual licence that fails to specify its revocability, and the gratuitous licence in my story just above. If that argument is sound (I personally have doubts that it is, as I've posted many times in this thread), I don't see how it can apply to Matt but not his sub-licensees. Or to put it another way, I can't see how the licensor's rights to turf out all the visitors can be stronger against the one they directly transacted with, than against the ones who are only there at the invitation of the person being turfed out.Turning to Section 13:Section 13 is expressly concerned with termination for breach, and its clear purpose seems to be to ensure that links in the chain/network don't break because of one party breaching, provided those downstream of them cure any inherited breaches. That's one reason why it calls out sub-licensees. Another is this: if you lose your contractual rights due to breach, you have nevertheless agreed that the rights to your content that you sent downstream (to the sub-licensees) remain in place. But I don't see how section 13 gives sub-licensees any general claim to enjoy the benefits of the licence that are stronger than those to whom the the benefits were directly licensed.</blockquote>

Verification