Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8931132" data-attributes="member: 7039850">Actually, doesn't this break down actually counter your argument? The second sentence explicitly refers to work containing OGC, while the first sentence do not?It would hence seem that if you have at any point entered an ogl contract, using anything you in that contract agreed to regard as PI independent of context would constitute breach of the contract.The reasoning for sentence 1 not being relevant hence do not strike me as strongly founded. If anything I would rather reason that if you switch your entire portfolio to ORC (hence no longer using any ogc via the OGL license), then it might rather be a question if that breach is having any practical implications? (Immediate effect seem to be that the contract terminates automatically if made aware, and I couldn't see any clause suggesting section 7 would survive termination. Hence the state seem similar to if you never accepted the ogl in the first place) But I am not a lawyer, and I woildnt be surprised if there are more subtelties than this in contract law regarding effects of such breaches.I can add that I think such an outside your work interpretation of PI actually make sense given the context and intention around the introduction of the OGL. It appear to have been a private attempt at privately clarifying the important boundaries very murky copyright law for the rpg domain. In this light OGC is sort of intended as declaring what material you consider not &quot;copyrightable&quot;, and in order for the licensor to conclude this, the lisensee need to assert in return that they will treat everything declared as PI to be fully &quot;copyrightable&quot; (with stronger protections than the laws alone provide).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8931132, member: 7039850"] Actually, doesn't this break down actually counter your argument? The second sentence explicitly refers to work containing OGC, while the first sentence do not? It would hence seem that if you have at any point entered an ogl contract, using anything you in that contract agreed to regard as PI independent of context would constitute breach of the contract. The reasoning for sentence 1 not being relevant hence do not strike me as strongly founded. If anything I would rather reason that if you switch your entire portfolio to ORC (hence no longer using any ogc via the OGL license), then it might rather be a question if that breach is having any practical implications? (Immediate effect seem to be that the contract terminates automatically if made aware, and I couldn't see any clause suggesting section 7 would survive termination. Hence the state seem similar to if you never accepted the ogl in the first place) But I am not a lawyer, and I woildnt be surprised if there are more subtelties than this in contract law regarding effects of such breaches. I can add that I think such an outside your work interpretation of PI actually make sense given the context and intention around the introduction of the OGL. It appear to have been a private attempt at privately clarifying the important boundaries very murky copyright law for the rpg domain. In this light OGC is sort of intended as declaring what material you consider not "copyrightable", and in order for the licensor to conclude this, the lisensee need to assert in return that they will treat everything declared as PI to be fully "copyrightable" (with stronger protections than the laws alone provide). [/QUOTE]

Verification