Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8917633" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's not obvious to me. You are trying to talk about legal relationships but not using clear terms of legal analysis.This is an illustration of my point. You are running together two distinct meanings of &quot;licensor&quot;:* The party whose IP rights are licensed;

* The party whose conduct brings about the licensing of certain IP rights.The whole point of the OGL - what makes it &quot;viral&quot; - is that downstream parties can engage in conduct which licenses (in the sense of my second dot point) IP belonging to upstream parties, whose IP is thereby licensed (in the sense of my first dot point). This is what is meant by a sub-licence.You also seem to be running together X enjoys a licence to use WotC's IP with X has entered into a contract with WotC that grants a licence to use WotC's IP. As per my post that you replied to, there can probably be instances of the first that are not instances of the second.No it's not. What's incorrect is your belief about how legal powers to confer licences to use IP work. You appear not to recognise that one party can confer on another party a power to confer a licence on a third party in respect of the first party's IP.To be blunt, your posts reveal that you don't have the expertise to make that sort of judgement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8917633, member: 42582"] It's not obvious to me. You are trying to talk about legal relationships but not using clear terms of legal analysis. This is an illustration of my point. You are running together two distinct meanings of "licensor": [indent]* The party whose IP rights are licensed; * The party whose conduct brings about the licensing of certain IP rights.[/indent] The whole point of the OGL - what makes it "viral" - is that downstream parties can engage in conduct which licenses (in the sense of my second dot point) IP belonging to upstream parties, whose IP is thereby licensed (in the sense of my first dot point). This is what is meant by a sub-licence. You also seem to be running together [i]X enjoys a licence to use WotC's IP[/i] with [i]X has entered into a contract with WotC that grants a licence to use WotC's IP[/i]. As per my post that you replied to, there can probably be instances of the first that are not instances of the second. No it's not. What's incorrect is your belief about how legal powers to confer licences to use IP work. You appear not to recognise that one party can confer on another party a power to confer a licence on a third party in respect of the first party's IP. To be blunt, your posts reveal that you don't have the expertise to make that sort of judgement. [/QUOTE]

Verification