NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8884060" data-attributes="member: 42582">No.Section 9 says "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."So section 9 does two things.It gives WotC a permission to publish new licences.And it gives licensees a permission to use those licences (which are, ipso facto, authorised licences) to use (in the indicated ways) OGC distributed under any version of the licence. Those versions must of necessity be authorised versions, because if not then they don't create OGC!You seem to be assuming that authorisation is a variable property of a licence, analogous to how (say) being an employee is a variable property of a person (often they are, but maybe they retire or lose their job and so cease to be). But that's not correct. Authorisation is a constant property of a licence, that it enjoys in virtue of having been published as a licence by WotC (or its agent).Material can be used under v 1.0/1.0a only if it is "OGC originally distributed under any version of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a".And material that is licensed only under v 1.1 will not be "OGC originally distributed under a version of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a". The drafting of v 1.1 will ensure that. We've already seen one way it does this: it doesn't create OGC at all, but rather Licensed Content.What you say about "the only way for 1.1 to call itself legally an "update"" isn't correct. WotC can publish a new licence and call it whatever they want. There is no legal restriction on this, other than general decency laws and bars on using protected public names (in Australia these are names to do with the Crown, the government, ANZACs and Don Bradman; I assume the US has similar sorts of protected names)."Authorised" is not a "keyword" - I've explained above, as well as in an earlier post upthread (#556, and see also my post #562) that it appears with its ordinary English meaning. And it does not need to be "manipulated". All WotC has to do is establish new contractual rights that do not intersect with the existing rights of licensees under the existing OGL. And I've explained how they can do this, pretty straightforwardly. The upshot is two ecosystems.</blockquote>

Verification