Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8890926" data-attributes="member: 7039850">(IANAL) In that case it sound like this might be something worth unpacking, as the interpetation of this seem to be the crux of wizards strategy, no matter if we think it is revoking, or exploiting 1.0a.By understanding is the following: lets assume we have 2 authorised versions of ogl, 1.0a and 1.0b, both essentially the same as the actual 1.0a with some irrelevant differences. We then have someone (A) publish a book with purly original content. It further declares some OGC and include a copy of 1.0a.First question, has A by necessity somehow agreed to any of the lisences? I would say no, as I cannot see would would imply such an acceptance. The OGL text is freely copyrightable, and A doesn't need to license any OGC to legaly publish their work as they already own all needed copyrights by virtue of being the original creator.Now B see the book, and find some OGC from A they would like to do something with, and want to obtain a lisence for using it. What is his options? It appear that A has offered B the ability to use the OGC as long as he agrees to the printed 1.0a agreement as stipulated in section 4. However there seem to be an alternative. A has also in section 9 stated that under some condition 1.0b can be used to copy the material. In particular as opposed to section 4 where clearly agreeing to the terms was the trigger to allow the use, that is not stated here.My interpretation of the situation is that by printing section 9 in their book A accepts that B copy their published OGC, as long as B has agreed to 1.b, and the copy appear in a work that complies to all terms and conditions set out in 1.b, and that even if the language appeared in the text of the 1.0a lisence, any form for acceptance or compliance with any of the 1.0a terms are not required.However this is not to me obvious for the formulation, but it is the only way I can make it make practical sense. [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER], what do your intuition say about this relatively simple example? I got the impression that your intuition got troubled once there were mor complicated situations with multiple active agreements, while here it wold seem like it is enough to accept one authorised OGL agreement to access any ogc?(And I assume agreements related to lisencing happens on a per use, rather than a per person basis, so it is irrelevant if B for instance have lisenced anything under 1.0a in the past)</blockquote>

Verification