I found this from the extensive list of documents maintained for the Jacobsen vs Katzer case which involved a open source licensing dispute.

From the decision of the Ninth Court of Appeals the 1st Appeal in the case

QuoteIf, however, a license is limited in  scope and the licensee acts outside the scope, the licensor can bring an action for copyright infringement. See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir.1989); Nimmer on Copyright, ' 1015[A] (1999)

Just before this is the following

QuoteThe heart of the argument on appeal concerns whether the terms of the Artistic License are conditions of, or merely covenants to, the copyright license. Generally, a  Acopyright owner who grants a nonexclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives  his right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement@ and can sue only for breach of contract. Sun Microsystems, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 1999); Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2d Cir. 1998).

The issue will hinge on which type of license the OGL is considered as.

What I don't see anywhere is any assertion that bare licenses (There appears to be a general agreement that they are not contracts) can't be granted.

All the cases I found revolve around one side saying "I gave a bare license so I am entitled to sue for copyright infringement and entitled a injunction" and the other side saying "I have a contractual license and therefore this is a "breach of contract" lawsuit.

The preference of those who issue their work under a license is to say they are granting a bare license. The preference of those who are on the other side of the dispute is to say that they have entered into a license that is part of a contract.

Because of the way common law legal system work it is rare to find a single thing that defines a concept. Legal concepts are developed through successive decisions that are later used as precedent to decide similar cases.

Quote from: estar;658889I found this from the extensive list of documents maintained for the Jacobsen vs Katzer case which involved a open source licensing dispute.

In a thread filled with bitchy pissing matches, you've covered yourself in glory by being level-headed, intelligent, and hardworking.

Thank you for bringing the sanity.

Quote from: estar;658888@Benoist,

While I am still hunting for decisions, I did find the exact legal terms which is "Bare License". Just about every legal dictionary and legal book excerpt state that a bare license is not a contract.

However there is a debate on whether open licenses, like the GPL, are just a bare license or include a contract as well.

The Hunt continues.

Quote from: estar;658889I found this from the extensive list of documents maintained for the Jacobsen vs Katzer case which involved a open source licensing dispute.

From the decision of the Ninth Court of Appeals the 1st Appeal in the case



Just before this is the following



The issue will hinge on which type of license the OGL is considered as.

What I don't see anywhere is any assertion that bare licenses (There appears to be a general agreement that they are not contracts) can't be granted.

All the cases I found revolve around one side saying "I gave a bare license so I am entitled to sue for copyright infringement and entitled a injunction" and the other side saying "I have a contractual license and therefore this is a "breach of contract" lawsuit.

The preference of those who issue their work under a license is to say they are granting a bare license. The preference of those who are on the other side of the dispute is to say that they have entered into a license that is part of a contract.

Because of the way common law legal system work it is rare to find a single thing that defines a concept. Legal concepts are developed through successive decisions that are later used as precedent to decide similar cases.

That is certainly interesting! Thanks for taking the time to do this, Rob!

Quote from: Novastar;658465A popular superhero movie makes gangbusters, but bad ones die spectacularly (see Daredevil).

Psst.  Daredevil made money.  A good bit of money in fact.  

Production Budget: $78 million.  Domestic Total Gross: $102,543,518. Worldwide: $179,179,718.

Quote from: Mistwell;658276Jacobsen v. Katzer raised these issues, and in that case you didn't have such blatant calling-out of purely contract issues such as offer, acceptance, and consideration.  Calling those issues out makes it clear it's a contract, and understood to be so by the parties.

Quote from: estar;658889I found this from the extensive list of documents maintained for the Jacobsen vs Katzer case which involved a open source licensing dispute.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;658890In a thread filled with bitchy pissing matches, you've covered yourself in glory by being level-headed, intelligent, and hardworking.

Thank you for bringing the sanity.

Quote from: Benoist;658903That is certainly interesting! Thanks for taking the time to do this, Rob!

Yes, clearly Estar's hard original work of reading the thread and then Googling what I mentioned should be praised

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;657737One way to "save D&D" is to have George R. R. Martin write a D&D series for HBO.

Fuck! One of several times I wish I could "like" a comment here.

Quote from: everloss;659079Fuck! One of several times I wish I could "like" a comment here.

Of course, if they did start that sort of thing, we'd have an instant deluge of players who want to "get it on" with the naked chicks at the table.

Or that GRRM would potentially pull a Robert Jordan, leaving a series halfway finished.

Quote from: Novastar;658465Comic book movies are a strange beast. They have high costs for the FX, but tend to save on actor costs (one of the reasons I doubt we'll be seeing RDJr. as Tony Stark, beyond Avengers 2). A popular superhero movie makes gangbusters, but bad ones die spectacularly (see Daredevil).

As to popular D&D characters, I could easily see Driz'zt and Dragonlance (despite the hate on this forum), being solid sells for D&D movies.
(just as long as they get an honest budget; that Dragonlance animated movie was atrocious)

Difference is, comics spent a couple decades becoming more 'mature' in their plots and characterization, and then gradually became big enough movie properties that top-flight writers, directors, and actors wanted to work on them.

A D&D movie that was a straight port of a Salvatore book to screen would awful. Worse than Conan.

Because you don't get big budgets without mass appeal. And you don't get mass appeal without offering something that a bunch of average adults - including women - will enjoy. I have a hard time imagining Drizzt and Elminster having witty repartee a la the Avengers, or semi-plausible romances with leading Hollywood ladies.

I mean yeah, it could happen. But it would be take a huge leaping in writing and characterization, and a huge leap of faith on the part of whoever was fronting the money for the movie.

Didn't Peter Jackson already make some D&D movies?

Quote from: Endless Flight;659120Didn't Peter Jackson already make some D&D movies?

According to Gygax, no.

This Mistwell thing again? I thought we'd demonstrated the flaw in his thinking about this last time around....

RPGPundit

Quote from: Endless Flight;659120Didn't Peter Jackson already make some D&D movies?

hmmm...maybe WotC should make some Lord of the Rings movies.  It'd be funny if the big screen incarnation of D&D was known for its depth of world building and slow paced, gentle tone.  I'm seeing elaborate watercolor animations and hearing harps and zithers.