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="masdog" data-source="post: 8891082" data-attributes="member: 7039919">I wasn't actually expecting anyone to try to answer.  Like I said, I was merely documenting the outstanding/debated questions that I saw as well as a few that I thought of.  And yeah, I know that some of them weren't very well formulated.I guess my question was around the vague use of "authorized license" in Section 9, and if a product was dual-licensed, would the second license be considered authorized for the purpose of that section.  AFAIK, it has no bearing on anything going on right now.  It was just an interesting question that I thought of.But I think you did answer it.Actually, I'm thinking about the reverse scenario.  Here is the thought experiment that was running through my head.  I realize that this is a hypothetical scenario, and it would likely be a corner case.Say I'm an executive and product line developer for 3PP(A).  3PP(A) makes content for OneD&D and has agreed that OGL 1.0(a) is not an authorized license.  I was one of the managers that helped make that decision to offer OneD&D products, created the product line, and was aware of the license terms.  I'm let go, or I leave, and I'm hired by 3PP(B).  3PP(B) makes content referencing their own custom-developed SRD that is licensed under OGL 1.0(a).  Could the terms of OGL 1.1 effectively be used as a non-compete to bar me from working for a company that develops OGL 1.0 products?  And how would that be handled in a jurisdiction that bars non-compete agreements?   (Again, I don't expect an answer here because the answer is "it depends."  It was just an interesting thought I had and decided to write down...)</blockquote>

Verification