Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8885003" data-attributes="member: 42582">As I posted a couple of times upthread - I don't think there is any point in trying to read press releases as if they are legal documents. When press releases, or &quot;info packs&quot;, are all that we have then we need to look at them and try to imagine what the legal framework is that they are describing.It seems pretty obvious that WotC wants to create a new ecosystem for licensed content, in which participants are obliged to play them royalties (under certain conditions). They will therefore not make the basic error of releasing a licence which obviously falls within the terms of OGL v 1.0/1.0a's section 9 and thus entitles existing licensees, and probably future sub-licensees also, to use WotC's new content under any the existing royalty-free licence.Thus, whatever exactly the OGL v 1.1 looks like, it will not be an &quot;update&quot; within the meaning of section 9 of v 1.0/1.0a.And &quot;update&quot; has no other legal meaning in this context that I can see.So trying to argue that v 1.1 will nevertheless, in some sense, be an update strikes me as pointless and even quixotic.This doesn't stop WotC's media and comms team describing things however they like - but why are you taking their choice of words so seriously if what you're actually trying to do is cut through the comms team's spin and make legal sense of what might actually be happening?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8885003, member: 42582"] As I posted a couple of times upthread - I don't think there is any point in trying to read press releases as if they are legal documents. When press releases, or "info packs", are all that we have then we need to look at them and try to imagine what the legal framework is that they are describing. It seems pretty obvious that WotC wants to create a new ecosystem for licensed content, in which participants are obliged to play them royalties (under certain conditions). They will therefore not make the basic error of releasing a licence which obviously falls within the terms of OGL v 1.0/1.0a's section 9 and thus entitles existing licensees, and probably future sub-licensees also, to use WotC's new content under any the existing royalty-free licence. Thus, whatever exactly the OGL v 1.1 looks like, it will not be an "update" within the meaning of section 9 of v 1.0/1.0a. And "update" has no other legal meaning in this context that I can see. So trying to argue that v 1.1 will nevertheless, in some sense, be an update strikes me as pointless and even quixotic. This doesn't stop WotC's media and comms team describing things however they like - but why are you taking their choice of words so seriously if what you're actually trying to do is cut through the comms team's spin and make legal sense of what might actually be happening? [/QUOTE]

Verification