When @Umbran and others say there is no contract with WotC because (eg) there is no exchange of documents between the parties, they demonstrate their lack of familiarity with Carlill and similar cases.
Let us be clear : I MADE NO SUCH ASSERTION. I do not understand where you got the idea that I did.
In fact, I asserted that WotC
cannot withdraw their offer of a contract (admittedly, I used flowery language, my apologies). The
Carlill case you are citing works against you, because it is an example of an offer that could not be withdrawn!
This doesn't seem right to me. They would just have to retract the offer.
There is no
mechanism for doing that. Indeed, the
Carlill case you site is one in which the company
could not retract an offer they'd made - so clearly you know this is possible.
You might want to go and re-read Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. I've got a reasonable working knowledge of the common law of offer and acceptance. I've even pointed to section of the OGL that gives effect to that law, namely section 3 (operating in tandem with section 4).
Please educate me. What in Carlill is evidence that WotC can withdraw its offer? Because, as it stands, the case isn an example of the opposite.
An offer can be withdrawn. That's basic contract law, as best I know the same in the US as Australia and the UK.
That's
generally true. But one can construct exceptions, and the stated intent in this instance was to do precisely that.
"I also had the goal that the release of the SRD would ensure that D&D in a format that I felt was true to its legacy could never be removed from the market by capricious decisions by its owners." - Ryan Dancey, Nov 23, 2010.
This doesn't seem right to me. They would just have to retract the offer.
There is no mechanism for doing so, because the offer and acceptance terms are contained
within the license itself, which explicitly cannot be modified. Thus, once extended, the offer cannot be withdrawn. As above, this was intentional.
What legislation or common law principle are you saying precludes WotC from withdrawing an offer, once made but not taken up?
Again, the license contains its own offer and acceptance terms, and explicitly contains language that it may not be modified. In addition, there is no
physical way for WotC to modify it - they cannot reach into other people's documents and alter them to remove the offer from the license.
Make no mistake, releasing things under the OGL is risky precisely because the licensor can't stop it once they've done so. The OGL is in many ways just a step or so off from just making the thing public domain.
You might want to go and re-read Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. I've got a reasonable working knowledge of the common law of offer and acceptance. I've even pointed to section of the OGL that gives effect to that law, namely section 3 (operating in tandem with section 4).
Again - In
Carlill, it was found that the offer was binding and enforceable, and the company could not withdraw. So, I fail to see how that argues
against my point. Carlill establishes that unilateral, open ended offers
are a thing.
