Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8883681" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this sentence in the article - "One of the biggest changes to the document is that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is “no longer an authorized license agreement." - is a bit misleading from the point of view of addressing technical questions.There won't be an update to the OGL v 1.0. OGL v 1.0 can't be updated in the literal sense - what section 9 permits is the use of alternative versions that are promulgated by WotC. This contrasts with (for instance) my contract with my bank, which the bank does have the authority to update while it remains the very same contract.And the OGL v 1.0 will not state, of itself, that it is no longer an authorised licence agreement.Rather, there will be a term in v 1.1 which says something to the effect that parties to the OGL v 1.1 agree not to use the v 1.0/1.0a licence; and if v 1.1 has an analogue of section 9, which to me seems likely given it will probably be a (quasi-)open copyright licence, that provision may expressly state that v 1.0/1.0a is not an authorised version for the purposes of that provision.But no terms of v 1.1 can be binding on anyone who is not a party to it.</blockquote>