Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Prime_Evil" data-source="post: 8883684" data-attributes="member: 11984">The copy of the OGL available via the Open Gaming Foundation includes the following preamble: &quot;THIS LICENSE IS APPROVED FOR GENERAL USE. PERMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE THIS LICENSE IS MADE BY WIZARDS OF THE COAST&quot;. See <a href="https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html" target="_blank">Open Game License v1.0a</a>This seems to indicate an intention for third-parties to distribute the license.A search of the website on Archive.org reveals the following FAQ for the version of the OGL published on 9/15/00:(<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001008122128/http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html" target="_blank">Open Game License v0.1 Simplified</a>)This would seem to seem to contain a clear statement of intent. Note that Ryan Dancey was vice president in charge of Dungeons &amp; Dragons at Wizards of the Coast when he posted this FAQ, so he may have been in a position to articulate corporate policy at that time. However, the OGF is a separate legal entity to WoTC. Something I didn't realize is that early versions of the OGL were marked Copyright 2000, Open Gaming Foundation. I'm not sure when the copyright was reassigned to WoTC.The FAQ published on the WotC website on&nbsp; January 26, 2004 contains a number of statements aligned to this document: That seems unambiguous. The existence of this FAQ might strengthen arguments based upon reliance.Ryan Dancey has just updated the OGF website, presumably to clarify the position:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Prime_Evil, post: 8883684, member: 11984"] The copy of the OGL available via the Open Gaming Foundation includes the following preamble: "THIS LICENSE IS APPROVED FOR GENERAL USE. PERMISSION TO DISTRIBUTE THIS LICENSE IS MADE BY WIZARDS OF THE COAST". See [URL='https://opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html']Open Game License v1.0a[/URL] This seems to indicate an intention for third-parties to distribute the license. A search of the website on Archive.org reveals the following FAQ for the version of the OGL published on 9/15/00: ([URL='https://web.archive.org/web/20001008122128/http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html']Open Game License v0.1 Simplified[/URL]) This would seem to seem to contain a clear statement of intent. Note that Ryan Dancey was vice president in charge of Dungeons & Dragons at Wizards of the Coast when he posted this FAQ, so he may have been in a position to articulate corporate policy at that time. However, the OGF is a separate legal entity to WoTC. Something I didn't realize is that early versions of the OGL were marked Copyright 2000, Open Gaming Foundation. I'm not sure when the copyright was reassigned to WoTC. The FAQ published on the WotC website on January 26, 2004 contains a number of statements aligned to this document: That seems unambiguous. The existence of this FAQ might strengthen arguments based upon reliance. Ryan Dancey has just updated the OGF website, presumably to clarify the position: [/QUOTE]

Verification