Search results

Well, I can completely agree that this is obviously a gross overstep of what would appear to be the the original intention of the clause. It indeed looks mostly like the licensing equvalent of an escalation of privileges exploit (used in software if a program like a virus manage to execute...

Ah now I see. Your argument seem to hinge on a particular understanding of the "authorized" term noone really seem to understand the scope and legal meaning of. Hence you get to a different conclusion than me :D But consider this: Ryan said that the point of "authorised" was to distinguish...

In the 1.0a, 1.0b example you say i only have to comply with 1.0b, while in the 1.0a, 1.1 you say I have obligations under 1.0a.. Is there some subtle difference between the two cases or obligation I am missing? A standard obligation under 1.0a is to have to include the 1.0a text. You assert...

Yeahm those two first paragraphs came out a bit random. It is first in paragraph 3 that pst is really starting to get a proper direction, the start was just flow of thoughts motivating the deep dive into section 9. Turns out clearly distinguishing "version of this license" as the dead...

I didnt quite catch what was the basis for envisioning liitations. Was it the consideration that a requirement should be that the notion of using material under a different license make sense? Interestingly GPL has a very similar clause to 1.0a section 9, but there they feel the need to specify...

Yes, i am aware, as should be aparent from the post you replied to. So your point was?..

Thank you! Howecer only expands/fixes a bit on one of my side points. What I wanted explained what was wrong was the reasoning leading to my bolded conclusion. Pointing out that wizards could cause a lot more damage than others if they exersise some power of revocation that any contributor have...

(IANAL) There is one strange thing with the kit Walsh update though. It make it sound like wizards is supposed to be one of the parties of the contract, but I see nothing in the agreement text itself that indicates that. Rather it seem like the formulation indicates the parties to be You and the...

Read wong. Too tired (european)

(IANAL) In that case it sound like this might be something worth unpacking, as the interpetation of this seem to be the crux of wizards strategy, no matter if we think it is revoking, or exploiting 1.0a. By understanding is the following: lets assume we have 2 authorised versions of ogl, 1.0a...

No he said the word "authorized" was there to distinguish draft from final version.

No, that is the section 4 grant. In order to get the extended usage rights offered in section 4, compared to the section 9 rights, you need to follow the license exactly.

(IANAL) Ah, there is a important distinction: Section 9 do not grant any rights to the partisipants of the agreement. Section 9 is the publisher of the book asserting that everything they have legaly designated OGL is free to use by anyone, also parties not subject to this spesific agreement...

How is 1.1 commersial's section X "This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), (..,)" not a reference to 1.0a section 9: "Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License."?

(IANAL still) How do you read "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." (1.0a section 9)? If I make a book and want to use an imagined authorized 1.0b to distribute the...

We are completely aligned until this statement. We don't know what wizards is thinking. I agree that your suggestion here might match most of the evidence, however I think my hypotesis matches more of it (weird definition of "unlisenced content" unless seen in context of 1.0a being available...

(IANAL) The thing is, as far as I can see the grant under section 9 do not require you to obey any 1.0a obligations as long as you are pulishing under a different, and authorized OGL (which means it is that lisence's obligation you need to abide to). It is the section 4 grant that require...

(IANAL) Would you? Imagine a oneD&D update of a 1.0a OGC creature. From my understanding the right you have to derive from the 1.0a OGC would be section 4 or 9 of OGC 1.0a. Both are only available to you under condition that it is released under 1.0a (assuming that no other relevant authorised...

What mechanism would grant rights to a vtt competitor to use the content originally lisenced under OGL-1.1?

It is not so clear, as I still fail to see how the leaked OGL-1.1 do not acheive that if using my interpretation of "no longer authorized" (That is that the only plain language effect of it is that you cannot use 1.1 OGC in 1.0a publications)