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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8868791" data-attributes="member: 42582">Unless I'm confused, your first paragraph is an analysis of how the sub-licensing works.EDIT to reply to related post:The licence is good against the copyright holder - that's its point. But it is mediated via the links in the OGL chain - eg Paizo, or the hypertext SRD.My ability to unpack it is limited, because I'm not an expert in the relevant contract law. But WotC have, in the licence they grant in respect of their SRD, authorised others to enter into an identical licence with further parties which confers upon those further parties rights against WotC. Is this agency? A grant of authority to sub-license that is short of agency (which was my assumption, influenced by section 13's recognition of sub-licences)? Someone more expert than me would need to unpack it.Suppose that X enters into the OGL with WotC, and then reproduces bits of the SRD that deal with clerics but changes the details of how Turn Undead works. Then Y publishes something that reproduces that Turn Undead system and extends it to demons and devils. Suppose further that Y has breached their obligations (eg there's an error in their Section 15 vis-a-vis X; or in Y's identification of X's OGC in Y's publication). Can X sue Y without also making WotC a party to the case? Can WotC sue Y directly? If they make X a party?If Y are in a contractual relationship with WotC, in which they have promised to treat all OGC in a certain way, then it seems that WotC can sue Y directly. (It is a further question what their remedy might be.) But is that the proper analysis? I'm not sure.</blockquote>

Verification