Aspirinsmurf
Hero
Which analysis is tortured?
I think you sum it up in #2,161. Why wouldn't this evidence be considered? It seems crucial to me, along with the representations they made when they first launched the OGL and in the FAQs.
Which analysis is tortured?
Great! I approve! But that still means the case wouldn’t show up in Norway. That’s my only point.I haven't agreed to those terms. And I never will.
That will depend on principles of construction, of evidence, and other things in the jurisdiction where the matter is heard. WotC would be wanting to confine the matter to the text of the licence. They would also want to argue that reliance on a public-facing FAQ as a guide to the meaning of the licence is not reasonable.I think you sum it up in #2,161. Why wouldn't this evidence be considered? It seems crucial to me, along with the representations they made when they first launched the OGL and in the FAQs.
The OGL in your book would simply become meaningless. It's presence won't harm anything, so you don't need to urgently remove it or anything. It's just a wasted page.Right, but if say OGL 1.0a is "de-authorized" and nobody challenges it and it becomes the de-facto state of affairs, and you switch to ORC, wouldn't all the open game content from others you use and cite, right now, in your game (if any, I don't actually know) need to also switch to ORC and re-designate the same content as open game content?
How else could that work?
This doesn't seem right to me. WotC's decisions about the terms on which it licenses its copyright material - assuming it has the power to make such decisions - don't seem to me to affect contracts made between other parties about how they license their copyright material to one another.The OGL in your book would simply become meaningless. It's presence won't harm anything, so you don't need to urgently remove it or anything. It's just a wasted page.
Nope. That could cost me thousands.@Morrus regarding the morality clause, would it be acceptable to allow WotC to suspend the offending licensee pending and independent review of the material by an independent third party.
But we're talking about people choosing to switch to a different license such as ORC, and how onerous the task is of how that license filters through. Which depends on the terms of that license. As I said, it could be an easy process, depending on the license.This doesn't seem right to me. WotC's decisions about the terms on which it licenses its copyright material - assuming it has the power to make such decisions - don't seem to me to affect contracts made between other parties about how they license their copyright material to one another.
Sure. But I think the idea that work will be orphaned without a switch to ORC is exaggerated. Whatever WotC does vis-a-vis the licences they have granted in terms of OGL v 1.0a, they can't affect al the other contracts between all the other licensors and licensees who have used that licence.But we're talking about people choosing to switch to a different license such as ORC, and how onerous the task is of how that license filters through. Which depends on the terms of that license. As I said, it could be an easy process, depending on the license.
I've never suggested anything like that. Frankly, I'm very much on record as saying I don't even believe WotC can de-auth the OGL (though man that's a debate that's getting old, and doesn't need to be rehashed here.)Sure. But I think the idea that work will be orphaned without a switch to ORC is exaggerated.