Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8885197" data-attributes="member: 6795602">This is what section 9 actually says:9. Updating the License: 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.The lack of 'authorized' in the 2nd underline makes perfect sense if one assumes a version of the license can be deauthorized.&nbsp; In that case it would read that OGC distributed under any OGL version, even a not currently authorized version, can still be used with currently authorized versions of the OGL.&nbsp; That makes 100% sense.It's hard for me to see an alternative reading that makes as much sense, given just the context of section 9.Consider the scenario:1.&nbsp; OGC was distributed under a previous version of this OGL license.2.&nbsp; You distribute it under a Wizards updated version of the licensee.Why would it need to specify that you can use any authorized version when the OGL specifically tells us the sentence before that the only party that can publish an updated version of the license is wizards - Wouldn't it have been clearer to just say 'any version'?&nbsp; Also, if 'authorized' was necessary in the first underlined part, why wouldn't authorized also be necessary in the 2nd underlined part?Thus, from a purely textual consideration - I personally am starting to find the deauthorization argument more compelling than I previously did.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8885197, member: 6795602"] This is what section 9 actually says: 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use [U]any [I]authorized[/I] version of this License[/U] to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under [U]any version of this License[/U]. The lack of 'authorized' in the 2nd underline makes perfect sense if one assumes a version of the license can be deauthorized. In that case it would read that OGC distributed under any OGL version, even a not currently authorized version, can still be used with currently authorized versions of the OGL. That makes 100% sense. It's hard for me to see an alternative reading that makes as much sense, given just the context of section 9. Consider the scenario: 1. OGC was distributed under a previous version of this OGL license. 2. You distribute it under a Wizards updated version of the licensee. Why would it need to specify that you can use any [U][I]authorized[/I][/U] version when the OGL specifically tells us the sentence before that the only party that can publish an updated version of the license is wizards - Wouldn't it have been clearer to just say 'any version'? Also, if 'authorized' was necessary in the first underlined part, why wouldn't [U][I]authorized [/I][/U]also be necessary in the 2nd underlined part? Thus, from a purely textual consideration - I personally am starting to find the deauthorization argument more compelling than I previously did. [/QUOTE]

Verification