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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8883897" data-attributes="member: 42582">In this case there is no "parent item", and nothing is "going" from version 1.0a to 1.1.These are just names given to privately-drafted instruments. WotC could call the instrument whatever it wants.The issue of whether or not it is a "version" within the meaning of section 9 of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a will depend on its terms. Given what WotC has said in its press release, and given the leak, I think it is pretty clear that v 1.1 is not an "update" to anything. It is a distinct licence that will not be part of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a ecosystem.I'll take your word for that. I don't know much about software. I'm talking about contract law.The OGL contains no provision for its own updating. Section 9 is not such a provision (despite using the word "update"). What it permits is (i) for WotC to issue new licences which (ii) licensees are free to pick and choose from when they use OGC.Sure, OK? Again, I have no expertise in market responses to software variations. I will say that when my computer updated itself form Windows 8 to Windows 10 (? or something like that - I'm remembering an event from years ago) I didn't get angry, even though it seemed to me that what had happened was a replacement of my Windows version which meant I could no longer use the old version.But anyway, we're not talking here about software naming and marketing practices. We're talking about contract law.Until the whole text of v 1.1 is seen, we can't know what role "authorisation" plays under that licence, and hence what it means for that licence to state that OGL v 1.0/1.0a is not an authorised licence agreement. (I doubt very much that the formal contractual text will use the phrase "no longer".)You say "WotC seems to be saying either that OGL v1.0a is not authorized for use with this content (least bad interpretation) or 'OGL v1.0a is no longer a valid license' (much more bad)", but there's no reason I can see to think that they are saying either of those things.WotC has given an outline of the content of their draft OGL v 1.1, and have indicated that under that licence, v 1.0/1.0a will not be an authorised licence. So the most obvious conjecture, I think, is that the OGL v 1.1 is going to be a (quasi-)open copyright licence, and hence will have a provision similar to section 9 of OGL v 1.0/1.0a, and furthermore will expressly state that v 1.0/1.0a is not an authorised version of the licence for the purposes of that provision.Whether or not that is a bad thing is not a legal question, and I express no opinion on it. My only point is that it is neither of the alternatives that you are putting forward.</blockquote>

Verification