Search results

There are actually a quite nice reading of this. Section II only require you to follow the terms of this license if publishing anything with "Licensed Content". In other words, it appear as long as you are not cross publishing with 5.1 SRD content, it is nothing in this OGL that prevents you...

Oh, I agree. I don't think they intended this to happen. My current guess is that they had a lawyer writing the legalese without a full understanding of the context, or the social implications. But now that the naughty word really has hit the fan, and a PR disaster is unavoidable anyway, the question is...

There have been links in other threads on this forum. Should probably have included it in the original post: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/ This passage is from the FAQ, soit is not directly legaly binding it self. However on the "Hello, I am a lawyer..." thread they after a lull of quite general...

But following my train of thought above: If you have the narrow interpretation of "no longer an authorized version"(NLAAV) that it only prevent use of open gaming material published in 1.1 to be used in 1.0a. Then there are no mechanisms hindering use of 1.0a in 1.1 works, but not only that. 1.1...

Regarding cross use - There are two mechanisms I can see preventing cross use from 1.1 to 1.0a. One is that I cannot see any mechanism that indicate that anything published under 1.1 is considered "Open Game Content" under 1.0a. The other is that the most narrow possible understanding of "1.0a...

Whoa. The statement that "t. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial." from the FAQ might actually have the following legal backing: Publishing SRD 5.1 based content commersially triggers...

It is not in the comments: It is in the faq on page 2

Yes, what confuses me about these is that most contract definitions I have seen appear to try to make the term more precise, and narrow, while still staying within the overall domain of the normal legal wording. With exception of "Licensed Work" I feel like the opposite is the case here. For...

I completely agree. The "No longer an authorized license" formulation has likely been discussed close to death (though I think my interpretation of it primarly being intended to ensure 1.1 content couldn't be used with 1.0a has been strangely ignored - and I think that interpretation is...

One thing that strike me is the clear seperation between 3 kinds of content: "Licensed Content" "Unlicensed Content" and "Licensed Work". These seem to be attempted defined as "keywords" with a much more specific meaning than what you would think of from "everyday" language. For instance...

There are already some threads discussing the release of claimed full text version of the OGL-1.1. Those I have seen have so far focused on discussing the validity of the document, and continued speculating around the consequences. These are fine discussions, but I wanted to make a thread for...

Seem like DMDave is already on the case, and have the seed quite ready by the looks of it: https://www.patreon.com/posts/creator-original-76891481

Given how the leak and quotes were presented, I for one did think it was exerps from actual legal texts. And I am very surprised if I am alone. This might be good to be aware of when interacting with non-lawyers, if this indeed is obvious to a lawyer. I will definitely defer to your assesment...

Ah, ok. If the leaks are not acceped as (potential) legal facts in terms of this discussion, I guess I have no more to contribute :)

I dont assume it. The phrasing "which is no longer an authorized license agreement." does. As far as I can see? Or do you have any way to construe any meaning to that formulation that do not involve the idea that the license is percieved to at one time have had the "authorized" state, and now do...

Irrevokable it should have been of course,,

Now you are mixing in other more common meanings of the term "authorised" as far as I can see? (A fully reasonable one, but my suspicion is that wizards big headache now is that they didn't think properly trough that common use of a word us of importance in law, and rather tried to treat is as a...

Even if revoking the Even if revoking the "authorized" status of 1.0a (limited to only this meaning and use of the term), 1.0a could still be considered a version of this lisence per section 9.

You still seem to get the wording backwards. According to 1.0a section 9 you can always use content using any version of ogl independent of their outhorization status. Hence defining 1.1 as authorized or not have no bearing on if you are allowed to use 1.1 material when you publish something...

Well, if 1.0 a is not revoked, but rather just not considered "authorised" in the section 9 sense, then that caveat wouldn't really be needed? The exact content is already available under 1.0a, and hence usable per section 4.