Search results

I should have clarified something, and something did get lost in the transition from brain to fingers: WotC can most certainly have agreements that overwrite prior contracts. The point that I was trying to make is that things that were made under 1.0a that were previously published should not...

Also another point about this is that while WotC can absolutely say that (insert language that makes 1.0a unauthorized), there is language in 1.0a that absolutely prevents them from doing that. This implies to me that they can certainly TRY to impose 1.1, and they could do to new work, stuff...

The lawyer was probably necessary to prevent legal backlash by WotC. It isn't a bad idea when considering that you just handed leaked content.

Actually, I have the section that everyone is fighting over (the revoke of 1.0a) as allegedly formatted by WotC. Not going to share it here, due to possible issues, but suffice it to say that I think that the document that was passed to the reporter was genuine to the best of my knowledge.

Then honestly, if that's true, then content that originally was released under 1.0a should then be allowed to be modified at the very least under 1.0a. I honestly don't think that WotC can deauthorize 1.0a for existing works, only for new ones.

See, here's the only possible issue that I see with OGL 1.1. It doesn't allow 30 days to cure whatever breaches that WotC will CAUSE by saying that 1.0a is an unauthorized document under 1.0a. Even if you are going with 4e as a base of your OGL content, if WotC says that 1.0a is no longer an...