No, it means that some versions might be released, but not ratified, thus never authorized. It clearly states that the license, once authorized, is perpetual and that you may use ANY authorized version. It implies nothing because this is a contract and contracts don't have implied clauses. What is written is what is written and ambiguity in said contract favors the licensee.
Nope. Nothing in the OGL mentions ratification.
3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
That's it. There is a Grant and Consideration, but no ratification method of new versions. But there is a clear statement that they can update the license and authorize those updates and thereby, deauthorize old version. That is clear in clause 9.
No, it means that some versions might be released, but not ratified, thus never authorized. It clearly states that the license, once authorized, is perpetual and that you may use ANY authorized version. It implies nothing because this is a contract and contracts don't have implied clauses. What is written is what is written and ambiguity in said contract favors the licensee.
Nope. Nothing in the OGL mentions ratification.
Ratification is the action of saying this thing is officially going live. Go ahead and use it. It's something that is done to the license, not to the licensee.
At this point, though, I think we have exhausted my faith in your good faith. If that's the only thing you've got to say, I'm about done.
It is "Authorization" according to the OGL. And if it can be Authorized, it can be de-authorized, according to the OGL. You are adding a term to the license that doesnt' exist anywhere in the license. WotC is the sole arbitrator of what is an Authorized or Unauthorized version of the OGL, via Clause 9.
It is "Authorization" according to the OGL. And if it can be Authorized, it can be de-authorized, according to the OGL. You are adding a term to the license that doesnt' exist anywhere in the license. WotC is the sole arbitrator of what is an Authorized or Unauthorized version of the OGL, via Clause 9.
Been there, done that. Go back to page 1 and start reading.
You say that it's on shaky ground but I see zero evidence of that;
The current OGL gives Wizards the right to revoke the license from individuals - which means that they can already stop people who are selling NFT's or doing harmful things.
And if that was genuinely all they wanted, they'd have never had an evil version that gave them full rights to third party creator's contents and 25% of their gross revenue.
But they did, because the whole 'oh the big bad NFT sales' things is just a smokescreen and I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. That's not a good should at all.
1. I have yet to see any evidence that the OGL is actually not enough for Wizards - show me a court case or an incidence in real life where someone was making bank on D&D NFT's or doing something obviously bad that Wizards of the Coast could not stop because the OGL didn't protect them enough. Show me one real incidence of this that isn't just imagined up for a hypothetical devil's advocate argument.
It is "Authorization" according to the OGL. And if it can be Authorized, it can be de-authorized, according to the OGL. You are adding a term to the license that doesnt' exist anywhere in the license. WotC is the sole arbitrator of what is an Authorized or Unauthorized version of the OGL, via Clause 9.
Incorrect, with a gross misunderstanding of contract law. Since Clause 9 does not reserve the right to "du-authorize" and they do not get to claim the right 23 years later. The actual authors of the OGL have already stated authorized was used to distinguish the release from the drafts. Using any authorized version implies there can be multiple authorized versions, not that there can only be one. The "definition" of authorized is a version which WotC puts out with the wording of "authorized" in it, just like OGL 1.0a. Else, folks could be using a "draft" copy of an OGL.
In contract law, the writer of the contract, especially a non-mutually authored contract, is the one who has the burden of proof as any language NOT included in the contract is assumed to be beneficial to the signatory of the contract and not the issuer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's it. There is a Grant and Consideration, but no ratification method of new versions. But there is a clear statement that they can update the license and authorize those updates and thereby, deauthorize old version. That is clear in clause 9.
Ratification is the action of saying this thing is officially going live. Go ahead and use it. It's something that is done to the license, not to the licensee.
At this point, though, I think we have exhausted my faith in your good faith. If that's the only thing you've got to say, I'm about done.
That is not the legal term according to the OGL.
It is "Authorization" according to the OGL. And if it can be Authorized, it can be de-authorized, according to the OGL. You are adding a term to the license that doesnt' exist anywhere in the license. WotC is the sole arbitrator of what is an Authorized or Unauthorized version of the OGL, via Clause 9.
Been there, done that. Go back to page 1 and start reading.
You say that it's on shaky ground but I see zero evidence of that;
The current OGL gives Wizards the right to revoke the license from individuals - which means that they can already stop people who are selling NFT's or doing harmful things.
And if that was genuinely all they wanted, they'd have never had an evil version that gave them full rights to third party creator's contents and 25% of their gross revenue.
But they did, because the whole 'oh the big bad NFT sales' things is just a smokescreen and I'm sorry but I'm not buying it. That's not a good should at all.
1. I have yet to see any evidence that the OGL is actually not enough for Wizards - show me a court case or an incidence in real life where someone was making bank on D&D NFT's or doing something obviously bad that Wizards of the Coast could not stop because the OGL didn't protect them enough. Show me one real incidence of this that isn't just imagined up for a hypothetical devil's advocate argument.
Incorrect, with a gross misunderstanding of contract law. Since Clause 9 does not reserve the right to "du-authorize" and they do not get to claim the right 23 years later. The actual authors of the OGL have already stated authorized was used to distinguish the release from the drafts. Using any authorized version implies there can be multiple authorized versions, not that there can only be one. The "definition" of authorized is a version which WotC puts out with the wording of "authorized" in it, just like OGL 1.0a. Else, folks could be using a "draft" copy of an OGL.
In contract law, the writer of the contract, especially a non-mutually authored contract, is the one who has the burden of proof as any language NOT included in the contract is assumed to be beneficial to the signatory of the contract and not the issuer.