Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8886525" data-attributes="member: 7039850">But following my train of thought above: If you have the narrow interpretation of &quot;no longer an authorized version&quot;(NLAAV) that it only prevent use of open gaming material published in 1.1 to be used in 1.0a. Then there are no mechanisms hindering use of 1.0a in 1.1 works, but not only that. 1.1 has currently no formulation I can see that can allow any content creators of 1.1 material to build on any work from other creators of 1.1 material (beyond wizards, that will at least update the definition of &quot;Lisenced Content&quot; as the new oneD&amp;D SRD is coming out). However with the narrow interpretation of NLAAV there seem to be nothing preventing from them to declare parts of their 1.1 compliant material &quot;Open Gaming Content&quot;, and hence enable other 1.1 creators to build on that trough the 1.0a section 9 clause, despite 1.0a not gaining access to that material - but this time the prevention of using 1.0a material would only be due to the NLAAV, rather than the first mechanism described in post 1000.As wizards already believe manage to do the main thing they seem to want - forcing content creators into 1.1 without the NLAAV language, the presence of it seem very puzzling to me, unless it is for the purpose of preventing 1.1 to 1.0a transfer based on either people voluntarily designating OGC, or hedging against some future ruling that future &quot;Licensed Content&quot; is to be considered &quot;OGC&quot; due to the spirit of the OGL. If they believe in the mechanism of use implies agreement, and they really wanted to do &quot;evil&quot; stuff with Paizo as has been speculated, why didn't they hedge their chances by also including the original SRD as &quot;Licensed Content&quot;? Indeed, that omission might rather seem like an active concession to Paizo in light of this reasoning?The only thing that still puzzles me is why they do not just plain clear up the confusion? My guess now would be that they see the industry getting into panic - the bad press has already happened. This is their chance to use the desperation to negotiate some deep concessions from their competitors, and in return just give them what they originally intended to do, trough clarifying the NLAAV the way described. By showing that they are willing to &quot;adjust&quot; they get a PR win that likely at least partly offset what they already suffer. The main stream media picking up the controversy is great to raise awareness. Maybe WotC are really happy with how this has turned out, and the louder we scream, the better it is for them?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8886525, member: 7039850"] But following my train of thought above: If you have the narrow interpretation of "no longer an authorized version"(NLAAV) that it only prevent use of open gaming material published in 1.1 to be used in 1.0a. Then there are no mechanisms hindering use of 1.0a in 1.1 works, but not only that. 1.1 has currently no formulation I can see that can allow any content creators of 1.1 material to build on any work from other creators of 1.1 material (beyond wizards, that will at least update the definition of "Lisenced Content" as the new oneD&D SRD is coming out). However with the narrow interpretation of NLAAV there seem to be nothing preventing from them to declare parts of their 1.1 compliant material "Open Gaming Content", and hence enable other 1.1 creators to build on that trough the 1.0a section 9 clause, despite 1.0a not gaining access to that material - but this time the prevention of using 1.0a material would only be due to the NLAAV, rather than the first mechanism described in post 1000. As wizards already believe manage to do the main thing they seem to want - forcing content creators into 1.1 without the NLAAV language, the presence of it seem very puzzling to me, unless it is for the purpose of preventing 1.1 to 1.0a transfer based on either people voluntarily designating OGC, or hedging against some future ruling that future "Licensed Content" is to be considered "OGC" due to the spirit of the OGL. If they believe in the mechanism of use implies agreement, and they really wanted to do "evil" stuff with Paizo as has been speculated, why didn't they hedge their chances by also including the original SRD as "Licensed Content"? Indeed, that omission might rather seem like an active concession to Paizo in light of this reasoning? The only thing that still puzzles me is why they do not just plain clear up the confusion? My guess now would be that they see the industry getting into panic - the bad press has already happened. This is their chance to use the desperation to negotiate some deep concessions from their competitors, and in return just give them what they originally intended to do, trough clarifying the NLAAV the way described. By showing that they are willing to "adjust" they get a PR win that likely at least partly offset what they already suffer. The main stream media picking up the controversy is great to raise awareness. Maybe WotC are really happy with how this has turned out, and the louder we scream, the better it is for them? [/QUOTE]

Verification