Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8868772" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Kind of.  I don't know if I would call them 'agents'.  That's a particular legal term that carries with it certain legalities that I have no idea whether apply to the licensee in this situation or not.I would say more specifically that WOTC requires the licensee to convey WOTC's offer that is extended within the OGL 1.0.  As long as WOTC is requiring the licensee to convey their offer via inclusion of the OGL 1.0 then I don't see any U.S. court agreeing that WOTC actually stopped making the offer no matter what they say or do elsewhere.  *And since WOTC cannot change the OGL 1.0 to stop the inclusion of that offer of license then I don't see legal ground for WOTC to legitimately claim they have ceased making the offer.That's fair.  I'm not lawyer but I think many here had the gut feeling that the following combination of terms led to that1.  Making the offer within the license2.  Requiring licencees to include the license, offer included3.  Not allowing any terms on the license to be changed4.  Only allowing termination for failure to comply with terms of license5.  Making the benefit of using the license perpetualAlso, the vague understanding that open source software functions on similar principles.I find the alternate idea of sub-licensing as an explanation you raise intersting but I know nothing about the law around sub-licenses.  Reading the text of the OGL 1.0 it appears to be the copyright holders doing the license granting but since there would be a third party involved in distributing that offer, does that mean they licesned from the third party, that the third party was an agent, or something else?  I don't have any idea on those legal answers.</blockquote>

Verification