Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8916189" data-attributes="member: 42582">That's exactly what a given OGL-licensed ecology is. That's how it works: that's what makes it viral, and is what is supposed to make it impossible to undo.If W licenses to A, who in turn license to B; and if W also licenses to C, who in turn licenses to D; then A and B have no legal relationship with C and D. In the scenario I've just sketched, B has heard of A (and must list A in their section 15 statement) and likewise D has heard of C. But A is not a licensee of B - A need not heard of B at all. Likewise as between C and D. And even more so when it comes to A and B, on the one hand, and C and D on the other. Just as one example, B doesn't need to mention C or D in their section 15 statement, and may not even know they exist. Of course A and B are offering to license to C and D (and vice versa). C or D would take up that offer, and thus enter into a contractual relationship, by using the OGC that A and B are offering. This would make one the licensee of another, and create a new contractual relationship in the network of interlocking contracts that make up a particular ecology of OGC.I don't see that it's an open interpretation. In my example just above, B isn't licensing to C or D - it's quite plausible that B has never heard of C or D, nor either C or D heard of B.The OGL has a mechanism for keeping track of the legal relationships, namely, the inclusion of a contributor in the section 15 statement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8916189, member: 42582"] That's exactly what a given OGL-licensed ecology is. That's how it works: that's what makes it viral, and is what is supposed to make it impossible to undo. If W licenses to A, who in turn license to B; and if W also licenses to C, who in turn licenses to D; then A and B have no legal relationship with C and D. In the scenario I've just sketched, B has heard of A (and must list A in their section 15 statement) and likewise D has heard of C. But A is not a licensee of B - A need not heard of B at all. Likewise as between C and D. And even more so when it comes to A and B, on the one hand, and C and D on the other. Just as one example, B doesn't need to mention C or D in their section 15 statement, and may not even know they exist. Of course A and B are [i]offering[/i] to license to C and D (and vice versa). C or D would take up that offer, and thus enter into a contractual relationship, by using the OGC that A and B are offering. This would make one the licensee of another, and create a new contractual relationship in the network of interlocking contracts that make up a particular ecology of OGC. I don't see that it's an open interpretation. In my example just above, B isn't licensing to C or D - it's quite plausible that B has never heard of C or D, nor either C or D heard of B. The OGL has a mechanism for keeping track of the legal relationships, namely, the inclusion of a contributor in the section 15 statement. [/QUOTE]

Verification