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: 8917955" data-attributes="member: 7039850">I think I would like to take a shot at describing what I understand to be [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] 's position in terms of the neccessary component my understanding has to be present accordning to [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] 's exeedingly patient and informative answers. I am not a legal scholar, so I likely will mess this up, but I hope I can bring it at least one step closer to legal formulation.I also would like to stress that I have been successfully convinced that this is not a reasonable interpretation of the OGL. This is mainly to try to bring clearity and hopefully some closure.Assume we ignore the issue with the first publication of OGC by wizards for now, and look at the point in time where the first person A is applying the OGL to a work containing a combination of A's and WotC OGC. At this point WotC and A is in a obvious contractual relationship. However the mechanisms proposed by FrogReaver appear to require the following parts of the agreement:(1) - Both WotC and A agree that all future offers they make of the OGL will "name" both A and WotC as licensors.(2) - Whenever someone new is publishing any OGC A and WotC promise to add them to the list of parts of their offers(3) - Whenever someone new is publishing any OGC A and WotC agree to effectively update the terms of their active contract to "name" the new entity a part of the contract.Hence when next B is publishing a combination of B and WotC OGC, they are entering a legal relationship with both A and WotC, as that is what is stated in the offer from WotC. Moreover they agree to be entered into the offer and contract terms as outlined in (1)-(3) above. Hence:(a) - Both B and WotC agree that all future offers from them will name A, B and WotC as part of the contract(b) - All offers from A is also updated to include A, B and WotC of part of the contract (per the agreement under (2) )(c) - The active contract between A and WotC is updated to also name B as a licensor, and part of the contract.Under this scheme I believe it should be well defined who is parts in what contracts at any given time. However as I said I don't think this is going to work out.The most glaring issue with this with regard to FrogReavers attempt at binding WotC contractually to the SRD is that while it might appear to be able to scale up inductively, it do not scale down to 1. A contract need to have two legal entities with the power to enter into contracts as parts from my understanding, and the definition of "Contributors" in the OGL is not enough to construct such an entity. And hence the bootstraping would require Wizards has to make that contract with either noone or themselves - which are clearly not working out.Moreover I think there might be severe issues with (2) as it require "global knowledge" to concretize who the parts of an offer would be, something I would guess might be legally prohibited for practicality reasons. And I would think there also might be issues with an implicit update to a contract of the form required for mechanism (3) to work.I hope this can contribute to sow some more clarity into the discussion. And please tell me if I am way off.</blockquote>

Verification