Xyxox wrote:
Grankless wrote:
"perpetual" does not mean "irrevocable".
An article by an IP lawyer on the subject.
True, but there is no language within the perpetual license on how specifically to revoke it, thus certain conditions must be met. That is a tough road to hoe for WotC as there is a two way quid pro quo in the license and all they can do is throw money at lawyers to drag it out and wear down the opponents before a decision is ever made. Again, the EFF is the best bet here because any decision on this will have HUGE ramifications for open source software licensing and they have won against bigger entities than WotC/Hasbro.
Thanks for sharing.
It is pretty clear that the legal standing WOTC has to revoke a previously listed as unrevocable agreement is hazy. It has been pointed out that irrevocable could reasonably be interpreted as authorized forever. Those terms are often legally interchangeable.
They are using creative language in the proposed OGL 1.0a to try to put the lid on pandoras box. It will be very difficult to argue this in court in good faith.
