Quotes from OGL 1.1 (via Linda Condega)

[teitan]

Those are antonyms.

Ok it’s obfuscation to intentionally confuse themselves.

 

[Reynard]

Ok it’s obfuscation to intentionally confuse themselves.

Why would they want to confuse themselves? they know what they are doing. This isn't an accident.

 

[teitan]

Why would they want to confuse themselves? they know what they are doing. This isn't an accident.

I’m being facetious. It’s called a joke son. impersonates foghorn leghorn

 

[reelo]

Yes, from the leaks we have seen that is the intent. It is "de-authorizing" the earlier versions of the OGL.

I still say that any publisher that has used OGL 1.0(a) up until now, and continues to do so without switching to 1.1 should be safe, because you cannot invalitate a valid license using a new license if said pybilisher does not adopt that license.

 

[dave2008]

I still say that any publisher that has used OGL 1.0(a) up until now, and continues to do so without switching to 1.1 should be safe, because you cannot invalitate a valid license using a new license if said pybilisher does not adopt that license.

While I agree, I have seen lawyers, who know better than I do, disagree.

 

[BrassDragon]

EDIT: wrong thread