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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 8888995" data-attributes="member: 13107">Hi,Comments and questions.  Not as a lawyer ... just doing my best to parse through the statements.  I'm finding the license text to be rather irksome.  The text seems, to me, to be very "muddy".Really, a license that strives to be clear and concise should be ... clear and concise.  Reliance on (what seems to me) excessive commentary is an indication that the text is neither clear nor concise.TomB-- Does "Your Content" include what was previously considered product identity?-- Does the "only applies ... as printed media and static electronic files" interact with the right to "use that content for any purpose" which is granted?-- How restrictive is "static" when applied to electronic files?  For example, is a layered map allowed?  Enabling / disabling layers is a dynamic content adjustment.  That seems to not be allowed.-- The license which must be offered by adopters of the OGL 1.1 are not sub-licenses of the OGL 1.1?-- I'm getting into a muddle when I consider the relationship of the primary licenses with secondary linceses, and how these interact.  I'm getting a feeling that there is an attempt to break the previous viral implications of the licenses, and there is too much borrowed language, leading to a muddle.-- I'm failing to parse the "does not apply ... that does not independently" statement.  The provision only (potentially) applies to criticism which independently violates the provision?J. You will not attempt to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way.-- This seems entirely unecessary.  Aren't contracts made under an assumption of "good faith" which obviates such a statement?-- I thought that any restriction on one's right to enter into legal actions were very limited.  That is, one can't give up one's right to legal actions, except in very narrow ways.  My understanding is that the court is loath to be told what it can or cannot do.-- This seems to practically limit any contestation of Wizards appropriating content created by an adaptor of this license, but which is wholly independent.  This seems to entangle all other content created by the licensee.  (If you have content which uses the OGL, and if you completely independently write a book which has nothing to do with licensed content, and WotC infringes on that and places it as Unlicensed Content, this statement seems to preclude suing Wizards in regards to the appropriated content.)-- Would this apply to a legal claim initiated by the licensee?  Totally bizarre, but seemingly technically falling under these statements.-- See above, "only applies ... as printed media".-- This is bizarre, and seems totally unnecessary.  Isn't a review a necessity of any contract?  That is, a contract relies on all parties having a clear understanding of the contract terms.  This statement not-withstanding, what matters is the actual review.-- Another bizarreness: If there were a time limit imposed on accepting the licence (say, 10 days), that might be considered less than ample.  Then adoption of the license would be prevented by the imposed time limit.-- How does this impact the transfer or sale of assets which have been distributed using this agreement?  The license does not seem to survive such a transfer.  This seems to complicate the sale or transfer of licensed content: Seemingly, the licensed content must be redistributed with a new license as adopted by the new owner of the assets.-- This selection of a preferred platform seems to be anti-competitive.-- Then, what is the point of the commentary, or of any FAQ or additional comments which may be provided by Wizards?  I would expect that any official statements made by Wizards could be taken as an accurate and legally relevant expression of Wizards intent and understanding of the license.  That is, Wizards can't provide comments that they don't mean, irrespective of the license saying "no, we don't really necessarily mean any of that".  It would seem that they can't have it both ways -- providing commentary and other official statements -- while not being bound in some way to those statements.</blockquote>

Verification