Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8891126" data-attributes="member: 42582">An "authorised licence", under section 9, is a licence that is published with the specified authority (ie by WotC or its designated agent) and that constitutes a "version" of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a. Not too far upthread I've indicated my view (somewhat tentative, but not completely unreasoned) as to what some of the constraints are that a licence must satisfy to count as a version (eg it might change obligations to do with product identity, but probably couldn't change the fundamental permissions and obligations that pertain to the use of OGC).If WotC licences their SRD in a different fashion, it would be up to them to declare whether or not they intended that other licence to be an authorised licence for section 9 purposes. As per my previous paragraph, I think that would be necessary but not sufficient to make it an "authorized version" of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a.I also reiterate that the above is put forward relatively tentatively. There may be different feasible interpretations, based on an argument that under section 9 licensees have granted WotC a far greater power to vary the rights that govern all the mutual interlocking contracts and licences that constitute an OGL ecology. But I have not seen anyone try to actually develop an alternative analysis along those lines.</blockquote>