Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Voadam" data-source="post: 8870015" data-attributes="member: 2209">I think you are looking at it from the wrong angle. You are looking at 1.1 as a separate thing on its own and under 1.1 terms and what is licensed out directly under the 1.1 OGL. I am talking about someone with 1.0 Section 9 rights looking to use 1.1 OGC under 1.0 terms under the 1.0 OGL and not under the separate revised 1.1 OGL at all.1.0 OGL is a license WotC made that gives licensees a Section 9 right to use certain other material under certain conditions (authorized versions of the OGL, OGC, etc).The question is then not whether 1.1 gives rights under its own terms, it is a question of whether under the 1.0 rights that WotC licensed out the 1.0 licensee can use OGC from 1.1.If a court finds Section 9 of 1.0 ambiguous as applied to the question of 1.1 OGC I think they could find evidence of WotC's announced declarations of intent as relevant for considering whether 1.1 is a version of the OGL under Section 9 of the 1.0 OGL.I am not arguing it would be determinative. For instance if the announced 1.1 turns out to change direction from what was announced and be clearly a non OGL thing at all the announcement of intent that we have now would not be that persuasive as evidence that the new license that got issued was actually a revised version of the OGL subject to Section 9 of the 1.0 OGL.I would expect a court to look at the exact terms of the licenses first to see whether 1.1 is a revision of the OGL under the 1.0 OGL Section 9, but a court will also look at other indicators of intent if a provision is considered ambiguous and WotC's public declarations on the subject (both here and in the past) could be relevant.</blockquote>

Verification