Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8883755" data-attributes="member: 7039850">When reading the leak, I was quite certain the leaked "deauthorized" language was only refering to the asymmetry formulation in section 9. Hence the only legal meaning of the term would be that 1.1 content could not be distributed under 1.0a, while 1.0a content could still be freely copied, modified and distributed under 1.1. Under this interpretation 1.0a content would still be permitted used in new 1.0a publications according to section 4 of the lisence.If this had been the case, it is obvious that wizards would still retain all rights involved. However when no actual lawyers seem to pick up on this to me obvious interpretation, along with a 13th of january deadline floating around without any leaked quotes about the legal formulation around the importance of this date, there seem clear that I am likely missing something.However even if I accept what seem to be the consensus opinion that wizards try to prevent publication of new 1.0a material, without understanding the legal framework that could possibly support such a claim - I cannot see why refusing anyone to make new 1.0a material would prevent anyone from using existing 1.0a material in 1.1 publications, as that appear to be a logically orthogonal concern.To illustrate how these are orthogonal, at least for a layman as me, imagine the following mechanism at work: Wizards asserts their copyright to 1.0a, denying anyone to produce new copies of this. That would naievly prevent further 1.0a publications, as the condition in section 10 couldn't be legaly be fulfilled. Meanwhile there would be no obvious legal grounds I could see for section 9 to not still be fully in effect.</blockquote>

Verification