Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8889717" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think the point of my post may have been lost.We have no difference of opinion re sub-contractors. My post was replying to an argument that took as a premise that either (i) the OGL is not a contract, or (ii) is a contract which for some reason is terminable at will by WotC.Any argument that I can see which protects the sub-licensees in the OGL case from at-will termination - basically, arguments from the lack of a power enjoyed by WotC to terminate the contract (whether based on the terms in themselves, or the terms interpreted in light of performance and reliance) - seem to me to extend to the direct licensee.And flipping it around, I think it is largely pointless to try and construct arguments that, even if WotC can repudiate at will against direct licensees, sub-licensees are protected from that possibility. Which is what was being suggested in the post I was replying to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8889717, member: 42582"] I think the point of my post may have been lost. We have no difference of opinion re sub-contractors. My post was replying to an argument that took as a premise that either (i) the OGL is not a contract, or (ii) is a contract which for some reason is terminable at will by WotC. Any argument that I can see which protects the sub-licensees in the OGL case from at-will termination - basically, arguments from the lack of a power enjoyed by WotC to terminate the contract (whether based on the terms in themselves, or the terms interpreted in light of performance and reliance) - seem to me to extend to the direct licensee. And flipping it around, I think it is largely pointless to try and construct arguments that, even if WotC can repudiate at will against direct licensees, sub-licensees are protected from that possibility. Which is what was being suggested in the post I was replying to. [/QUOTE]

Verification