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: 8884173" data-attributes="member: 42582">No one thinks the leaks are draft legal text, do they? They are a draft PowerPoint summary or similar.I've done my best over the past few pages of this thread to explain what I think the legal text will look like (in general terms) and what its operation and effects will be.Agreed. "Propaganda" is another word that could be added to my list of possible descriptions!I think they are quite serious about (i) ceasing to offer to licence under the existing terms, and (ii) making sure the new ecosystem, with its royalties regime, is separated from the existing one. And this will include, I think, an express statement in OGL v 1.1 that OGL v 1.0/1.0a is not an authorised version of 1.1, for the purposes of 1.1's equivalent of section 9 in the current OGL.But (at the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clarity) I don't think this (or anything else) will terminate existing rights of existing licensees.I think 3 is possible, but its effectiveness for WotC's purposes may be doubtful because of the express provision for survival of sub-licences.I have no idea about how common 2 is (ie 3PPs using unlicensed material). If they do that and get pinged, my sympathy for them is limited. Whether this would allow termination would depend on the details, I think. Copyright infringement is not per se a breach of the OGL But, eg, use of Product Identity is.They would want to argue 1 - ie we revoked, hence there is no licence, hence the reproduction of our SRD or a work derived from it infringes our copyright (and if the publisher has the SRD in their section 15, they will be hard-pressed to contest the factual element of the complaint). The publisher will plead the licence in their defence. And this is where the issue of unilateral revocation will be worked out.Upthread [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] and I discussed the risk of retreating from the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, and hopefully this post brings them out again - you continue to run all the risks of liability but without being able to plead the contract in your defence.</blockquote>

Verification