Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8917371" data-attributes="member: 7039850">What I find mind boggling about this is that there are definitely parties interested in maintaining the integrity of this license, including the public.To illustrate: For the sake of argument assume wizards go defunct in a way that make their IP effectively unenforced (as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] points out, going out of business might not be a sure way of this, but there might be other ways). Moreover assume Paizo is thriving.Now assume a new company A publishes a work using 5.1SRD under OGL 1.0a, but include the claim that it is "compatible with D&D". From what has been said, Paizo is then free to inform A that they are in breach of OGL 1.0a. However what if then A is making a claim (highly unlikely to hold up in court) that they indeed is not in breach?(1) From what I understand has been said, Paizo would then be powerless to prevent A from continuing to spread their work?If this is the case, that can cause the following situation: People pick up A's practice and a wave of new "compatible with D&D" works starts popping up. The brand recognition cause customers to pick up their products, hurting Paizo's sales.(2) Are Paizo still unable to do anything, despite this unfair competative advantage? If they can, what legal mechanism would allow them to do so?Assuming Paizo is still powerless, and this situation go on for a significant amount of time. Assume now a new company B put significant investments into a product line "extending Golarion" using PFSRD under OGL1.0a under the false belief that A's argument above now is effectively settled due to industry reliance without opposition (or similar legal-like thinking). Now Paizo is clearly in a position to sue B.(3) Could conceivably the market situation caused by Paizo not being able to stop company A affect the outcome of the case against B in terms of damages awarded, or B's ability to somehow save their investments?B being mislead to believe their investments to be safe, is the reason I think it would be of public interest that issues related to such public licenses can get settled without it needing to be engaged by the rights holders. For instance CC seem to be open to similar abuse by for instance someone publishing copies of defunct entities work under CC.</blockquote>

Verification