mamba
Legend
I hope none doI wonder what happens if no 3pp come over to the new OGL. No royalties And perhaps a shrinking fan base.
I hope none doI wonder what happens if no 3pp come over to the new OGL. No royalties And perhaps a shrinking fan base.
The 13 January deadline for content creators makes me think it'll be around that time, but the last official date given by WotC was "early 2023".When is the new/updated OGL supposed to be made public?
Also not being dismissive. Just trying to puzzle it out.I still don't know what "de-authorisation" means in this context. Is it meant to be a notion that arises under the terms of the OGL v 1.0a? A general notion from the law of IP licensing? Or something else.
My reading of the OGL v 1.0a is that WotC cannot unilaterally terminate their existing licence with (say) Hypertext SRD. And under section 4 of the OGL, Hypertext has the authority to license others to Use the OGC that has been licensed to it, provided that the sub-license itself is in the same terms as the OGL v 1.0 (subject to the possibility of choosing other authorised versions as per section 9).
What's the alternative view? I'm not being dismissive, but it would be helpful to actually see it set out.
Or sublicense was included because it's contract law term with specific meaning - which would make the most sense as nowhere else in the OGL does it use or define that term.Also not being dismissive. Just trying to puzzle it out.
I think the missing link in your argument is that "Use" includes the ability to "Distribute", a defined term that contains the word "license". So, to rewrite your sentence a bit, Hypertext has the authority to license others to Use the OGC - and the ability to Use includes the ability to Distribute, and the ability to Distribute includes the ability to license - that has been license to it. That's arguably a drafting error, excluding the ability to sub-license in list of rights granted by Section 4, but including it in the definition of Distribute. That's classic legal chicanery and I'd be very interested to talk to the lawyers who drafted the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a to see if it was intentional.
I bet they will release 1.1 and revoke 1.0 / 1.0a on the same day.The 13 January deadline for content creators makes me think it'll be around that time, but the last official date given by WotC was "early 2023".
Friday the 13th is a fitting dateThe 13 January deadline for content creators makes me think it'll be around that time, but the last official date given by WotC was "early 2023".
I'm pretty sure that's now how U.S. contract law works. One of the most amusing things about the OGL is how hard it's trying to fit on a couple of sheets of paper. "Sublicensee" isn't a defined term that the parties to the OGL have agreed upon and I don't know what authoritative, legally-controlling source they would look to find its "specific meaning."Or sublicense was included because it's contract law term with specific meaning - which would make the most sense as nowhere else in the OGL does it use or define that term.
Section 9 has the relevant clause - "you may use any authorized version of this Licesne to copy, modify and distrbiute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this license.I still don't know what "de-authorisation" means in this context. Is it meant to be a notion that arises under the terms of the OGL v 1.0a? A general notion from the law of IP licensing? Or something else.
My reading of the OGL v 1.0a is that WotC cannot unilaterally terminate their existing licence with (say) Hypertext SRD. And under section 4 of the OGL, Hypertext has the authority to license others to Use the OGC that has been licensed to it, provided that the sub-license itself is in the same terms as the OGL v 1.0 (subject to the possibility of choosing other authorised versions as per section 9).
What's the alternative view? I'm not being dismissive, but it would be helpful to actually see it set out.
Probably Black's Law Dictionary.I'm pretty sure that's now how U.S. contract law works. One of the most amusing things about the OGL is how hard it's trying to fit on a couple of sheets of paper. "Sublicensee" isn't a defined term that the parties to the OGL have agreed upon and I don't know what authoritative, legally-controlling source they would look to find its "specific meaning."