|
|
|
|
|
|
by Macha
1240 days ago
|
|
|
> Yes, a corporate executive is on record making a claim like that. Do you take it a face value? When there's twenty years of track record and a prior occasion (D&D 4e's GSL) where it would have been advantageous for them to try this, sure. You can't have a legal contract say an ambiguous statement then spend a literal decade promoting one interpretation then switch to another. This is why US laws about detrimental reliance or EU standards like promissory estoppel exist. |
|
|
OGL 1.0a isn't ambiguous; I didn't read anything ambiguous and I didn't see anyone point to ambiguity in it.
Elsewhere, outside any license, they did promote another interpretation, but every IP attorney I read said that didn't matter.