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="robconley" data-source="post: 8886789" data-attributes="member: 5636">Except it wasn't Wizards who transferred me the rights but rather Matt. I get that it is their copyrighted material. Matt had perpetual permission to use and sublicense that content.  Wizard revokes the OGL 1.0a for their content and terminates the license. That means Section 13 comes into play. Matt loses the right at the very least to make any new content based on the formerly open content of Wizards. However, in accordance with Section 13 it doesn't terminate the sublicense that I gained from Matt. I received the right to use Wizard content from Matt. Which Matt can revoke if Wizard's theory is upheld. But in accordance with section 13, Matt sublicense is still alive.Look I get what you said earlier and I thought we all agree that the issue of sublicensing is unsettled.  I can how your interpretation can hold. But there is that pesky independent sentence in Section 13 mucking it up.Furthermore , while hairs are being split. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> It occurred to me that if you look at Section 9.It is in two partsPart 1Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License.Part 2 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.They are not dependent clauses according to the rules of grammar.So the argument can be made that at one time Matt was authorized to grant me the right to use not only his original content but Wizard's content as well. While Wizards can withdraw their own authorization they can not withdraw Matt's authorization.In addition, the OGL says this about the term distribute. So to me, the plain meaning of this means that anytime I read distribute, I can consider it to encapsulate licensing as well. Since Matt Finch was authorized by Wizard to grant a sublicense to their content in 2009. That if Wizard's theory is upheld, only Matt can deauthorize that license grant to myself. As Matt's license to me exists independently of Wizard's license to Matt.Again I get this is all wrapped up in ambiguity and the law is not really equipped to deal with altruistic licenses like the OGL. That this interpretation like any other would have to fought out in the courts at great expense.</blockquote>

Verification