Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8885293" data-attributes="member: 42582">First, &quot;updated version of the OGL&quot; is not a technical term in the abstract.Second, to render it into one we have to assume it has meaning within the context and operation of section 9.Section 9 confers a power on WotC (or its agents) to publish variant licences. And it also confers a permission on all licensees, who use OGC, to use which licence (out of all the variants) that they use it with.If the OGL v 1.1 were to count as one of those variant licences for the use of OGC, then any licensed user of OGC could choose to use that OGC under any other variant, including v 1.0a which does not require the payment of royalties. This would kill WotC's royalties regime stone dead.Therefore, v 1.1 will be drafted in such a way as to make clear that it is not one of the variants that existing licensees have permission to use. We have already seen one of the features of that drafting: it does not have OGC but rather Licensed Content. I would expect v 1.1 to have a provision in it similar to section 9 of v 1.0/1.0a, but I would also expect that provision to expressly exclude v 1.0/1.0a from being a relevant authorised variant. (And this is what I believe is meant by the phrase in the info pack that v 1.0a &quot;is no longer an authorized license agreement&quot;.)There is no deauthorisation argument. You ask &quot;why would it specify that you can use any authorised version&quot;? The answer is that this reinforces that versions that can be used must be those published with appropriate authority, ie by WotC or its agents. That's it.I already posted a more detailed account of this, in reply to your earlier post, upthread at #556:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8885293, member: 42582"] First, "updated version of the OGL" is not a technical term in the abstract. Second, to render it into one we have to assume it has meaning within the context and operation of section 9. Section 9 confers a power on WotC (or its agents) to publish variant licences. And it also confers a permission on all licensees, who use OGC, to use which licence (out of all the variants) that they use it with. If the OGL v 1.1 were to count as one of those variant licences for the use of OGC, then any licensed user of OGC could choose to use that OGC under any other variant, including v 1.0a which does not require the payment of royalties. This would kill WotC's royalties regime stone dead. Therefore, v 1.1 will be drafted in such a way as to make clear that it is not one of the variants that existing licensees have permission to use. We have already seen one of the features of that drafting: it does not have OGC but rather Licensed Content. I would expect v 1.1 to have a provision in it similar to section 9 of v 1.0/1.0a, but I would also expect that provision to expressly exclude v 1.0/1.0a from being a relevant authorised variant. (And this is what I believe is meant by the phrase in the info pack that v 1.0a "is no longer an authorized license agreement".) There is no deauthorisation argument. You ask "why would it specify that you can use any authorised version"? The answer is that this reinforces that versions that can be used must be those published with appropriate authority, ie by WotC or its agents. That's it. I already posted a more detailed account of this, in reply to your earlier post, upthread at #556: [/QUOTE]

Verification