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="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8891365" data-attributes="member: 7039850">Well, I can completely agree that this is obviously a gross overstep of what would appear to be the the original intention of the clause. It indeed looks mostly like the licensing equvalent of an escalation of privileges exploit (used in software if a program like a virus manage to execute commands using a higher level of privileges than it is supposed to have, like a guest user program acting as an administrator)However the mechanism and definition of what constitutes a new version in ogl 1.0a appears very clear: The only condition presented is that it is published by wizards or one of their agents (and presumably have to be presented as a new version) If wizards ever publishes the document that has been leaked it appear that at least the 1.0a text clearly claim it is indeed a new version. And we never need to leave the scope of 1.0a to find the central claim of what that entails.Hence in order to be able to claim that a potentially wizards release of the leaked document is not a version of ogl, it wouldnt be enough to efer to everyday understanding of words in a way that can be important to understand terms across texts. You would need to somehow invoke some overall principle that limits a contracts ability to effectively redefine the term "version" away from everyday understanding within the scope of a single paragraph.And this is where IANAL limits me. I have no idea if there might be any such legal mechanism under any juristiction?</blockquote>

Verification