On Tue, 22 Jan 2002 10:09:40 -0500, William Olander wrote: >Here's a Hypothetical Conspiracy Theorist version of what could >happen ...
In your scenario, anyone who released a product under OGL 4.0 would be giving it to Hasbro. But section 9 of OGL 1.0a states, "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." A publisher would have to be an idiot to use version 4.0 when the terms of OGL 1.0a are so much better. We'll always have the option to use OGL 1.0a for work published under that license. As long as we're contemplating impropable doomsday scenarios that could stick a fork in open gaming, how about this -- Hasbro adds a new term to OGL 4.0: "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish anything designated as Open Game Content without being subject to the terms of this license." Unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible, we're trusting Hasbro not to introduce sweetheart terms for itself into future versions of the OGL. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
