Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8889777" data-attributes="member: 82106">What I think is the problem with all these notions that WotC can 'de-authorize' prior versions of the license vis-a-vis anything once licensed under those prior versions, or withdraw things from such licensure in such a way as to immediately forbid existing uses has a HUGE problem, as it makes the 1.0a license into a joke. The only POINT of such a license was 'reliance', without which its essentially valueless (IE WotC just waits until you do anything substantive under it and then threatens you with revocation). This would also, to an extent, be an issue with other Contributors, as they too would gain the 'stop licensing my stuff as of today' power (though not the de-authorization of the license itself power). I can certainly see the point of view that WotC can say &quot;no, we are now, from today forward, offering our material only under this 1.1 successor OGL license version&quot; and particularly to say &quot;all our NEW stuff is not, and never was, licensed under 1.0a or 1.0.&quot; I mean, it is their stuff! Presumably 1.1 then doesn't say &quot;or any other version&quot; and maybe says &quot;or later version&quot; instead (or maybe not). That would remove SOME of the ambiguity about whether you can just choose an old license. I think the 'no longer an authorized license' wording is trying to, AT LEAST, reinforce that point. WotC REALLY REALLY needs to clarify what its stance is with respect to existing OGC and existing licensees, and existing OGC and anyone who decides to enter into a 1.0a license and use that existing OGC after 1.1 is released. I mean, its hard to imagine they do not mean to stop allowing new licensees, but MAYBE barely possible they only mean to stop new 1.0a licensing of new material. I doubt it, because they could have just issued a totally new license without any mention of OGL in it at all in that case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8889777, member: 82106"] What I think is the problem with all these notions that WotC can 'de-authorize' prior versions of the license vis-a-vis anything once licensed under those prior versions, or withdraw things from such licensure in such a way as to immediately forbid existing uses has a HUGE problem, as it makes the 1.0a license into a joke. The only POINT of such a license was 'reliance', without which its essentially valueless (IE WotC just waits until you do anything substantive under it and then threatens you with revocation). This would also, to an extent, be an issue with other Contributors, as they too would gain the 'stop licensing my stuff as of today' power (though not the de-authorization of the license itself power). I can certainly see the point of view that WotC can say "no, we are now, from today forward, offering our material only under this 1.1 successor OGL license version" and particularly to say "all our NEW stuff is not, and never was, licensed under 1.0a or 1.0." I mean, it is their stuff! Presumably 1.1 then doesn't say "or any other version" and maybe says "or later version" instead (or maybe not). That would remove SOME of the ambiguity about whether you can just choose an old license. I think the 'no longer an authorized license' wording is trying to, AT LEAST, reinforce that point. WotC REALLY REALLY needs to clarify what its stance is with respect to existing OGC and existing licensees, and existing OGC and anyone who decides to enter into a 1.0a license and use that existing OGC after 1.1 is released. I mean, its hard to imagine they do not mean to stop allowing new licensees, but MAYBE barely possible they only mean to stop new 1.0a licensing of new material. I doubt it, because they could have just issued a totally new license without any mention of OGL in it at all in that case. [/QUOTE]

Verification