Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8905637" data-attributes="member: 42582">WotC can relieve other parties of their obligations to it, including their obligations to offer OGC for sub-licensing.If 3PP X has contractual obligations to 3PP Y to offer OGC for (sub-)licensing, but (i) that OGC would infringe WotC's copyright but for a licence, and (ii) is not covered by permissions conferred by section 4 (as per my mooted interpretation), then X is in a quandry.The possibility of inconsistent contractual obligations is one reason against the interpretation I've canvassed. I don't think it's fatal. Of course it would defeat the viral character of the OGL, but that's already a consequence of the canvassed interpretation.I reiterate: I am not factoring in any interpretive implications of the FAQ, conduct undertaken by WotC and its officers, etc. I am engaged in purely textual interpretation.</blockquote>