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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8886842" data-attributes="member: 42582">You are trying to read it as a statute! (I know that's becoming my mantra. But it really is a barrier to understanding the legal situation when people do this.)The OGL v 1.0/1.0a, as a bit of text posted by WotC and Ryan Dancey on various websites, has no legal effect. WotC is not a legislator, and cannot create general legal obligations nor confer general legal permissions.WotC, as a private party (just like the rest of us), can enter into private law agreements that impose contractual (and other private law) obligations and confer contractual (and other private law) permissions.So when WotC enters into a licensing agreement with X, on the terms stated in the OGL, then of necessity it has also authorised them to reproduce the copyrighted text of the OGL - because otherwise X would not be able to fulfil the agreement that WotC and X have made between themselves. The OGL also permits X to transfer this authorisation down the chain of sub-licenses - and this is a permission that WotC have conferred on X by entering into the agreement with them.But now, if you choose to enter into an agreement with Mongoose and Jason Kemp, whose terms are those of the OGL, you do not gain any express permission from WotC to use their copyrighted text setting out those terms. Your contract with those other parties does not bind WotC. You will need to find some other basis for arguing that WotC has nevertheless permitted you to use their copyrighted text. I've made some suggestions upthread as to what that basis might be.</blockquote>

Verification