Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8891577" data-attributes="member: 7039850">Not that I can see. The actual quote that tend to be read that way. &quot;But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial.&quot;Also this is in the faq, so not legal language. And thinking about it for just a bit, especially in connection with the previous sentence where they reference custom deal it is quite apparent that the first thing that come to mind when reading it is clearly nonsense. The obvious claim this could be read as would be that the only way they intend to enable anyone using any srd content would have to do so by agreeing to this is just laughably implausible. Would anyone seriously believe wizards would never write custom contracts allowing other big businesses to use content found in the srd at more favorable terms? You really think Paramont would happily sign off those rights?This lead me to think that they are using the language trick of introducing a new word: &quot;SRD-based&quot;. OGL 1.1 is &quot;srd based&quot; as it explicitely mention the srd as having a special position in its terms. Note that OGL 1.0a is not mentioning SRD. Hence their claim seem like a valid description of the situation. The only license that grants rights to commercial use and is SRD-based is indeed 1.1 commercial (at the time of assuned relevance for this faq).It can be said to be deliberately misleading to make you think there is no other way to use OGL. But isnt it rather very clear upon closer inspection that that is not what they are actualy saying?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8891577, member: 7039850"] Not that I can see. The actual quote that tend to be read that way. "But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial." Also this is in the faq, so not legal language. And thinking about it for just a bit, especially in connection with the previous sentence where they reference custom deal it is quite apparent that the first thing that come to mind when reading it is clearly nonsense. The obvious claim this could be read as would be that the only way they intend to enable anyone using any srd content would have to do so by agreeing to this is just laughably implausible. Would anyone seriously believe wizards would never write custom contracts allowing other big businesses to use content found in the srd at more favorable terms? You really think Paramont would happily sign off those rights? This lead me to think that they are using the language trick of introducing a new word: "SRD-based". OGL 1.1 is "srd based" as it explicitely mention the srd as having a special position in its terms. Note that OGL 1.0a is not mentioning SRD. Hence their claim seem like a valid description of the situation. The only license that grants rights to commercial use and is SRD-based is indeed 1.1 commercial (at the time of assuned relevance for this faq). It can be said to be deliberately misleading to make you think there is no other way to use OGL. But isnt it rather very clear upon closer inspection that that is [I]not[/I] what they are actualy saying? [/QUOTE]

Verification