I can tell that this is probably pressure by higher ups to force this through, but the authors of OGL 1.0 and 1.0a have already made it public that the authorized feature demonstrates an exclusion of drafted OGLs, like this one. You can't revoke a perpetual license by inventing new meanings and loopholes in language.
I can tell that this is probably pressure by higher ups to force this through, but the authors of OGL 1.0 and 1.0a have already made it public that the authorized feature demonstrates an exclusion of drafted OGLs, like this one. You can't revoke a perpetual license by inventing new meanings and loopholes in language.
You can, however, rescind an offer of a perpetual license. Which is what they did. You only get the 1.0 perpetual license if you were using it—it only has any power once you opt into it. That is not a loophole - that is just something even a first year law student could tell you.
And that is what deauthorised means - “we are not making this offer any more. If you already accepted, you still get those rights, but you can’t accept it from this day forward.”
Even beyond basic contract law, the text of 1.0 makes this possibility clear as well. The fact folks talking about it years ago fundamentally did not understand what was given to them changes nothing.
I can tell that this is probably pressure by higher ups to force this through, but the authors of OGL 1.0 and 1.0a have already made it public that the authorized feature demonstrates an exclusion of drafted OGLs, like this one. You can't revoke a perpetual license by inventing new meanings and loopholes in language.
You can, however, rescind an offer of a perpetual license. Which is what they did. You only get the 1.0 perpetual license if you were using it—it only has any power once you opt into it. That is not a loophole - that is just something even a first year law student could tell you.
And that is what deauthorised means - “we are not making this offer any more. If you already accepted, you still get those rights, but you can’t accept it from this day forward.”
Even beyond basic contract law, the text of 1.0 makes this possibility clear as well. The fact folks talking about it years ago fundamentally did not understand what was given to them changes nothing.
That’s why I made sure to publish something under OGL 1.0a last week, just in case.
I can tell that this is probably pressure by higher ups to force this through, but the authors of OGL 1.0 and 1.0a have already made it public that the authorized feature demonstrates an exclusion of drafted OGLs, like this one. You can't revoke a perpetual license by inventing new meanings and loopholes in language.
You can, however, rescind an offer of a perpetual license. Which is what they did. You only get the 1.0 perpetual license if you were using it—it only has any power once you opt into it. That is not a loophole - that is just something even a first year law student could tell you.
And that is what deauthorised means - “we are not making this offer any more. If you already accepted, you still get those rights, but you can’t accept it from this day forward.”
Even beyond basic contract law, the text of 1.0 makes this possibility clear as well. The fact folks talking about it years ago fundamentally did not understand what was given to them changes nothing.
That’s why I made sure to publish something under OGL 1.0a last week, just in case.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting