Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8886859" data-attributes="member: 42582">There have been good replies about this from [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] and [USER=1772]@bmcdaniel[/USER].Some additional thoughts:Consider an existing party, X, who has an existing licence agreement with WotC on the terms set out in the OGL v 1.0a. Under that agreement, X has permissions to reproduce OGC found in the SRD.Now WotC have promulgated a new instrument - OGL v 1.1 - which says (more or less) that by reproducing anything in the SRD you are agreeing to be bound by this new instrument.From the point of view of X, WotC is attempting to vary the terms of their existing licence agreement. And is, in effect, purporting to say that X's continued exercise of their rights under the existing agreement constitutes an acceptance of the variation of terms.It seems to me, therefore, that it should be sufficient for X to protect their current position that they make plain to WotC that they don't accept that variation - eg by sending a polite note stating that they intend to continue exercising their rights under the OGL v 1.0/1.0a and not do accept the offer to vary the terms of the agreement to those set out in OGL v 1.1.WotC does not seem to me to have any power to unilaterally vary the terms of its existing licence agreement with X.(A somewhat parallel case: I recently took delivery of a household appliance I had purchased. Affixed to the appliance was a note saying that if I didn't complain within 48 hours, I accepted that the delivered appliance was in satisfactory condition. Before the 48 hours had expired I sent an email to the vendor telling them that I had read their note, that I was not going to have my professional installer doing the job within 48 hours, that I was not able myself to ascertain the condition of the appliance, and that despite their note I reserved all my rights.)</blockquote>

Verification