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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8870545" data-attributes="member: 42582">In the case of statute law, we have rules - the rules of legislative procedure and statutory interpretation - for working out whether or not a new bit of law is a revision/update (amendment or repeal) to an old bit of law. This includes doctrines like that of implied repeal.But the OGL is not a statute. It's a private law agreement. So the concept of just an update to OGL / updated OGL isn't one that can just be used as if it is self-evident what it means, and self-evident what would count as such. Whether a new private law instrument constitutes an update to, or revision of, a prior one will depend on the construction of both the old and the new instruments.Another way to look at it is this: under the OGL 1.0/1.0a, WotC has not made a binding promise to anyone about the manner in which it will offer licenses for its future work. (Eg no one tried to argue that offering the 4e SRD under the GSL was a breach of contract with OGL parties.) So it can offer to license the revised SRD under whatever terms it wants. Suppose, in those terms, it uses the phrase "Open Game Content". Will that phrase, in itself, enliven the rights that existing OGL parties have as per section 9 of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a? I don't see how that question can possibly be answered without knowing what the rest of the OGL v 1.1 says.[USER=2209]@Voadam[/USER], I'm tagging you because this also adds to my reply to your just upthread.</blockquote>

Verification