Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mamba" data-source="post: 8917835" data-attributes="member: 7034611">the first was the case I was going for, but I do agree with both answers (IANAL though) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />So how does this mesh with what you wrote in the intial post I replied to&quot;those who license under the OGL do so with the contributors and not with a licensee trying to sublicense&quot;WotC clearly is only a contributor, but A is both a licensee of WotC and a contributor of its own OGC. Is your point that B is not sublicensing WotC's OGC from A? I'd agree with that too (again, IANAL), why else would you need to include both in section 15.I noticed you have 'under the view that the OGC is not a pool' as your caveat. Do you still believe it is, or have we moved on from that point at least? I guess not fully at a minimum, why else include it...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mamba, post: 8917835, member: 7034611"] the first was the case I was going for, but I do agree with both answers (IANAL though) ;) So how does this mesh with what you wrote in the intial post I replied to "those who license under the OGL do so with the contributors and not with a licensee trying to sublicense" WotC clearly is only a contributor, but A is both a licensee of WotC and a contributor of its own OGC. Is your point that B is not sublicensing WotC's OGC from A? I'd agree with that too (again, IANAL), why else would you need to include both in section 15. I noticed you have 'under the view that the OGC is not a pool' as your caveat. Do you still believe it is, or have we moved on from that point at least? I guess not fully at a minimum, why else include it... [/QUOTE]

Verification