3 ms·
IANAL. I am looking at a copy of OGL 1.0a and find this paragraph: 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions o
by gmueckl 4y ago
IANAL. I am looking at a copy of OGL 1.0a and find this paragraph:
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.
I believe that the crux of the matter is "authorized version of this License". I can see a few ways to argue that this phrase gives WotC the right to revoke any version of the license other than the most current one.
- musicale 4y agoI don't read that as "we can revoke this retroactively on anything, even non-WoTC games" but I guess the lawyers will hash it out.
- rhdunn 4y agoThe OGL 1.1 license (according to the leaked draft/text) explicitly says that OGL 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. The 1.1 license is clear that any content using SRD (System Reference Document) content will be in violation unless they update to the 1.1 license (and thus comply with either OGL 1.1 Commercial, OGL 1.1 Non-Commercial, or the Fan Content license). The situation around non-SRD OGL content is murkier.
- golem14 4y agoSo not being a lawyer and not giving legal advice, to me this seems to say that as someone producing something with OGL1.0, "you MAY replace it with a newer, authorized version" means that if you don't, the old version stays, or goes away entirely ? I,e. you then may decide to use another new fresh license of your own choosing ? Or it becomes unlicensed ? Because if there is a requirement that at anytime an authorized version were to be used, wouldn't the language needed be "you MUST replace it with a newer, authorized version" ?