Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8899320" data-attributes="member: 42582">Thanks for that.As I read the v 1.1 leak, it relied upon a consensual variation together with an implausibly broad acceptance provision. Although it had broader language in its FAQ. I think the bit you've posted is definitely clearer in its allusion to section 9 - have the actual contractual terms been leaked? (I also wonder: did WotC rewrite along clearer section 9 lines given the apparently widespread community acceptance that section 9 does confer a unilateral power of contractual variation?) I don't think it changes my earlier point - Paizo,, too, in the future can assert strained interpretations of its legal rights (I mean, as you know, the right of variation that WotC now asserts is directly contradictory to what they posted in their FAQ in the past). The issue that is driving the current furore is not legal right, but commercial reality (ie WotC is confident that few are prepared and able to litigate).That makes sense to me, given (i) Paizo's size, and (ii) the centrality to Paizo's business model of the OGL v 1.0.</blockquote>