Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8929209" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is wrong.Here is the opening clause of section 7: &quot;You agree not to Use any Product Identity&quot;.Here is the definition of &quot;You&quot;: &quot;'You' or 'Your' means the licensee in terms of this agreement.&quot;This is also wrong, or misleading at best.Scenario: A has published work under the OGL that includes, or is derivative of, licensed material from WotC's SRD. B has subsequently published work the includes material licensed by A under the terms of the OGL (ie Open Game Content), and then C wishes to publish work that contains B's material.B has made a contractual promise to A that B will offer to license A's OGC, plus B's work that is derivative of A's OGC, under and only under the terms of the OGL. The fact that W has now offered to license its SRD on different terms (ie CC-BY) does not change the terms of the contract between A and B. It does not give C any new permissions in relation to A and B's work.There may be an argument that A has been impliedly released of its obligation to W under their previous licence agreement.I don't know what this means. In this context, as best I can tell, &quot;reverse engineering&quot; means some sort of paraphrase of the SRD. That tends to look like a type of suspect copying to me.I am aware that some people have used the OGL to enter into licensing arrangements to which WotC is not a party. I've made many posts about this over the past several weeks.As I have made clear, I am talking about products which acknowledge WotC's SRD in their section 15 statement. That quite strongly implies that the work is derivative of the SRD: if it were not, why would the acknowledgement be there?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8929209, member: 42582"] This is wrong. Here is the opening clause of section 7: "You agree not to Use any Product Identity". Here is the definition of "You": "'You' or 'Your' means the licensee in terms of this agreement." This is also wrong, or misleading at best. Scenario: A has published work under the OGL that includes, or is derivative of, licensed material from WotC's SRD. B has subsequently published work the includes material licensed by A under the terms of the OGL (ie Open Game Content), and then C wishes to publish work that contains B's material. B has made a contractual promise to A that B will offer to license A's OGC, plus B's work that is derivative of A's OGC, under and only under the terms of the OGL. The fact that W has now offered to license its SRD on different terms (ie CC-BY) does not change the terms of the contract between A and B. It does not give C any new permissions in relation to A and B's work. There may be an argument that A has been impliedly released of its obligation to W under their previous licence agreement. I don't know what this means. In this context, as best I can tell, "reverse engineering" means some sort of paraphrase of the SRD. That tends to look like a type of suspect copying to me. I am aware that some people have used the OGL to enter into licensing arrangements to which WotC is not a party. I've made many posts about this over the past several weeks. As I have made clear, I am talking about products which acknowledge WotC's SRD in their section 15 statement. That quite strongly implies that the work is derivative of the SRD: if it were not, why would the acknowledgement be there? [/QUOTE]

Verification