Reading 1.1 legalese

[TerraDave]

I saw that and read it- it’s what I was talking about. It’s not the actual license/agreement. I still haven’t seen a copy of the actual (assuredly lengthy) license/agreement.

Right, where is the "legalese"?

But maybe that is it, in the outlined parts. The references to SRD 5.1, the warranties and indemnities discussion, the cute but offensive tiering, that is the actual license.

Maybe this is not part of some grand brilliant scheme, or any kind of serious contract or licensing work, but just something thrown together at the insistence of a senior WotC executive when they learned about the OGL.

 

[Langy]

I saw that and read it- it’s what I was talking about. It’s not the actual license/agreement. I still haven’t seen a copy of the actual (assuredly lengthy) license/agreement.

The part at the beginning is a FAQ; everything else is the actual license/agreement. It is interspersed with "explainer" sections listed "COMMENTS:"; this is because the original hypertext document included them as separate information that expanded when clicked and is not part of the actual license. In stripping the given document to a form that can be shared without revealing the source of the document, they made it slightly more difficult to tell what is the legalese parts and what isn't.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The part at the beginning is a FAQ; everything else is the actual license/agreement. It is interspersed with "explainer" sections listed "COMMENTS:"; this is because the original hypertext document included them as separate information that expanded when clicked and is not part of the actual license. In stripping the given document to a form that can be shared without revealing the source of the document, they made it slightly more difficult to tell what is the legalese parts and what isn't.

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills?

The link I was given (and what I keep seeing) isn’t the license. I have seen some screenshots of what appear to be the license, but I have yet to see an actual copy of the full license.

If I’ve missed it, please provide a link. Thanks!

 

[Langy]

It's right here: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

The license starts on the very bottom of Page 2. All formatting has been stripped out, and as I mentioned it has commentary embedded (and clearly marked) so it's a little harder to read than the original would be.

 

[Kinematics]

I feel like I’m taking crazy pills?

The link I was given (and what I keep seeing) isn’t the license. I have seen some screenshots of what appear to be the license, but I have yet to see an actual copy of the full license.

The first two pages are intro text. The header for the non-commercial portion of the license is the last line of the 2nd page. The start of the commercial portion of the license is in the middle of the 8th page.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's right here: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

The license starts on the very bottom of Page 2. All formatting has been stripped out, and as I mentioned it has commentary embedded (and clearly marked) so it's a little harder to read than the original would be.

So the reference to the second page helped; I had been viewing it on my phone, which refused to display it correctly (it was only displaying the first page). I moved to my computer and I can see it now correctly. Thank you!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Ugh. So after reviewing the (purported) actual agreement, the whole thing seems even weirder.

In the actual legal sections, there is a strange mix of language which is correct and expected (such as the language regarding forum and waiver of class action etc.) .... along with language I can't imagine seeing in an actual agreement (the indemnification clause is just ... it's weird. Not in intent, but in the way it is written.)

Maybe this is an artifact of the formatting and the way some commentary gets mixed in with the terms, but I keep thinking that this just profoundly weird.