Search results

Edited - misread your post. How would you propose getting hobbyists to create works, using 1.0a OGC, that you have monopolistic vtt rights to that is less complicated than making a new ogl? Edit2: slightly more clear syntax

They can publish OGC under 1.0a, but they could not mix that with one D&D content that they want to keep out of the 1.0a ecosystem. 1.1 a grants (presumably) anyone permission to mix 1.0a OGC and 1.1 Lisenced Content for static purposes, as long as it is published according to 1.1. But once...

Previously they didn't have a way to secure a strong competitive advantage over the original creators. Hence not worthwhile to do. The acquisition of D&D beyond, along with a OGL monopolising use of ogl content alongside oneD&D content in the virtual space completely change that calculus.

That is the thing: wizards would need a separate agreement. With my interpretation of their intent with "no longer an authorized agreement" (not revoking 1.0a, just ensuring 1.0a cannot use 1.1) they have the following mechanism: 1: Make a product under 1.1 comercial containing copies of lot of...

Why would they want to just not say "revoking 1.0a", if it is equivalent, using less unusual wording?

(IANAL) Well, here the tricky legalese legwork come in working come in. Section 1.0a section 9 doesn't specify that you need to accept the lisence the OGC was originally contributed under in order to publish it under 1.0a provided 1.0a is "authorized". Hence even if the 1.1 agreement spelled out...

Indeed, and revocation is the only complaint I argue is likely completely misunderstood. All the other issues with 1.1 still stands, and make it quite awfull. That is part of why I think wizards would have loved if they could just release a new 1.0b along with 1.1, if that had been enough to...

Well, it is even more important to them to be able to use all the 1.0a material under 1.1. That can only be achieved by it being an update to OGL1.0a. They cannot release other people's 1.0a OGC under a GSLv2 themselves.

(IANAL) I would actually find it quite likely that they would love to do so. The more I read the actual full document and reading what wizards officially said beforecte release, the more convinced I am that wizards intentions was to exploit rather than revoke 1.0a. (There is a hint of...

(IANAL) Your quote, if it had been an actual full sentence in 1.0a, would indeed have granted weight to a conclusion that "no longer authorized" would imply revokation. I was under the impression that this was your argument for the intepretation that there was a revoke claim in the text? I...

(IANAL) The way you quote this is extremely misleading. At the very least you should have added "to (...)" The statement appear to me to be formulated so that any "authorized" lisence have one aditional ability than the one stipulated in section 4. Section 4 allow the use of all 1.0a content in...

If they think they have something real good to say, they woild likely time it to when it is at top for maximum publicity ;) That would at least have been one explenation why they have waited so long..

Best case: Full explanation of an intent that was obviously morally dark grey (hence belivable), but due to the extreme pushback they have decided the trust of the community is the most valuable thing, so in order to try to really heal the rift they shelve that plan, and are immediately starting...

(IANAL) Ok, I accept that I am horrible at assessing what other people might have done. I find your take on what might have happened also very plausible. Indeed, that we haven't heard any subtle hints that those actually getting the full draft first thinks differently, but rather seem to be in...

I think there is also another sett of extremely important distinctions here: What do wizard say What did wizard intend to say What will wizards do with what they said In consumer software there is very standard that licenses of use are extremely one sided. This as opposed to business-level...

Yes. But I think when they wrote this document they had similar thinking as me, and didn't really think that it could be construed as an attempt at actually revoking 1.0a, as they thought that was well established and obvious from a legal standpoint would be impossible. First when this blew out...

(IANAL!) The full arguments for the alternative interpretations are earlier this thread. However there are no analysis of how in particular the most publicized leak (Gizmodo) was extremely misleading: "This agreement is, along with the OGL: Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL...

(And I keep forgetting to mention IANAL)...

Yes, but as have been argued, there are more reasonable interpretations off those two quotes once you put your legalese glaces on ond start reading the context. These quotes were initially leaked and published without the needed context to have any good chance of recognising these alternative in...

Oh, this is great! The definition of "Unlicensed Content" actually are very vague. There are only 2 conditions described. One is that is non 5.1 srd published by wizards, but critically it doesn't say all. That there is not an implied all can also be gathered as that would have made the next...