4 ms·
The crux of the argument is OGL section 9's use of "authorized": > 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of th
by trynewideas 4y ago
The crux of the argument is OGL section 9's use of "authorized":
> 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
And 1.1's rumored revocation of that authorization. And no matter how clear in common sense it might be that Hasbro shouldn't be able to do that, I don't think we're going to find out exactly how that falls apart until it's ruled upon in a court.
- thayne 4y agoIt isn't defined what it means for a version to be "authorized" though, which means it is ambiguous. And the FAQ for the original OGL makes it pretty clear that that intent was that once a version is authorized, it can't be un-authorized. As a layman, non-lawyer that seems like a pretty tough argument for WOTC.