Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8886275" data-attributes="member: 7039850">One thing that strike me is the clear seperation between 3 kinds of content: &quot;Licensed Content&quot; &quot;Unlicensed Content&quot; and &quot;Licensed Work&quot;. These seem to be attempted defined as &quot;keywords&quot; with a much more specific meaning than what you would think of from &quot;everyday&quot; language. For instance &quot;Licensed Content&quot; and &quot;Unlicensed Content&quot; is not complimentary in the space of all &quot;content&quot; but rather in a more weakly defined space of WotC content.When I say weakly defined I want to point to the missing &quot;all&quot;, and the &quot;includes&quot; formulations that if all had been implied seem redundant from a legal standpoint.Is this kind of definitions of terms that seem highly relevant for the subject matter away from a more common understanding of the terms common?As a side note to that - in a comment Licensed Content is associated with the old term &quot;Open Game Content&quot; from the &quot;old OGL&quot;. As this is outside the legal terms of the contract, do this still have any modulating effect on the actual legal interpretation of the definition in the definitions in section I. As those terms seem to be weaker defined than the corresponding 1.0a terms.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8886275, member: 7039850"] One thing that strike me is the clear seperation between 3 kinds of content: "Licensed Content" "Unlicensed Content" and "Licensed Work". These seem to be attempted defined as "keywords" with a much more specific meaning than what you would think of from "everyday" language. For instance "Licensed Content" and "Unlicensed Content" is not complimentary in the space of all "content" but rather in a more weakly defined space of WotC content. When I say weakly defined I want to point to the missing "all", and the "includes" formulations that if all had been implied seem redundant from a legal standpoint. Is this kind of definitions of terms that seem highly relevant for the subject matter away from a more common understanding of the terms common? As a side note to that - in a comment Licensed Content is associated with the old term "Open Game Content" from the "old OGL". As this is outside the legal terms of the contract, do this still have any modulating effect on the actual legal interpretation of the definition in the definitions in section I. As those terms seem to be weaker defined than the corresponding 1.0a terms. [/QUOTE]

Verification