Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Steel_Wind]

Revocation and termination essentially mean the same things here: cancellation of contractual obligations. However, one term or the other provides a different connotation that is appropriate in different contexts.

I would agree. Revocation is a discretionary - and potentially even arbitrary - choice by a party who has that discretion under a contract or trust. Termination is consequential on a event(s) or other condition; it may include a discretionary revocation -- but it is more than that so that there is a triggering event which can bring it into effect.

These are generalities of course, and in many cases amount to a distinction without a difference. But in terms of general terminology and use in contractual language, I think that is true.

 

[masdog]

In Canada, well... let's just say that about HALF of all submissions to the court at any hearing will begin with counsel apologizing to the court about something. "We're sorry about [something] this morning - and we're especially very sorry to trouble the court with this matter."

That seems…uh…to fit the Canadian stereotypes.

 

[S'mon]

To use your example, most engineers don't have to tell their client, "Look, here's the deal. I really like this bridge design. I think this is the best design possible. If we commit to building it, I give it ... well, a 90% chance of not falling down immediately."

I once long ago did a mini-pupillage with Robin Jacob*, when he was head of Chambers, before he was judge, knight, professor, and head of UCL IP Law (he sounds like a level 18 3e multiclass PC). I remember him happily telling a client things were looking good, they had a 55% chance to win! The client was aghast. Jacob had to explain that "55%" was as high as it ever got; basically lawyer-speak for "a dead cert".

*Many years later I was at the Sir Hugh Laddie Memorial lecture, and Sir Robin Jacob stole away the two pretty girls I was there with to have dinner with him; leaving me, and Ben the fiancee of one of the girls, to make our own way home!

 

[S'mon]

Thank you for your kind words. For what its worth, much of my day-to-day work involves explaining little bits of the law or interpretation of agreements to clients trying to be useful and helpful. To be useful necessarily involves tightening the focus to the issue at hand, rather than a grand top-down explanation of an entire body of law; that is why I emphasized that I was responding to you specifically rather than expounding more broadly. I'll let the professors do the expounding.

As a 'professor', let me say, I am greatly in awe of your explanatory skills! Not to mention your patience.

 

[Enrahim2]

Now WotC promulgates a new licence text, that they label "OGL v 2", and that they declare to be an authorised update to OGL v 1.0a, and that contains the following additional text: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this licence, if a Contributor distributes Your OGC then You must send a cheque for $100 to WotC."

This is highly interesting! I agree to your assesment that in this case seem like something there would be laws prohibitting. I would think there are mechanisms in place to protect against someone entering a completely unreasonable deal due to not fully understanding the full implications of the wording. And I dont know what the legal effects would be. For instance if the law decides 1.0a is unfair as it appear to technically allow such exploits, there are as far as I could see at least two ways the law could respond: Either nullify the abusable contract (1.0a), or giving the result you suggest that only the part allowing for the exploit is considered not valid for this exploiting case.

The first one is actually the strongest argument I have understood (not neccessarily seen) so far for how 1.1 could effectively kill 1.0a, so that is something. And I have to now agree that your incompatibility argument between 1.1 and 1.0a might make a lot of sense.

So thank you very much! Your long answer was really enlightening, and I actually think it might have helped me out of a way of thinking I was stuck in.

(And by the way I am also anoyed by my own IANALs, but as I am not a lawyer I just don't feel safe how to post musings about law in a thread filled with lawyers :/ I just have no way to guess what might be the limit of someone misconstrued something as legal advice, and I might get in some sort of trouble)

 

[Myrdin Potter]

That seems…uh…to fit the Canadian stereotypes.

Honestly, when I moved to the USA, I really had to adjust my world view about suing people. It is embarrassing in Canada when it comes to that. Especially in non-business cases. In the USA I think you sue right after you have coffee in the morning. When I was running Legal, the main areas we had were construction and real estate deals. So much lawyer posturing there in the USA and we were very global so I had quite a good perspective. Compared to the fund raising/Investment Bank/SEC lawyers I was used to dealing with, it was pretty extreme. And that includes fighting off a securities class action lawsuit ....

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And that includes fighting off a securities class action lawsuit ....

Oof. Of the many ... interesting .... lawsuits out there, the strike suit is among the most ... interesting.

 

[jgbrowning]

Hrm... Dancey and Glicker (at role for combat) talked about getting a bench judgement. Glicker said that after speaking with Dancey he spoke with several lawyers and he said that they all thought that a bench judgement was likely. It doesn't sound like any of the lawyers here think that.

joe b.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Hrm... Dancey and Glicker (at role for combat) talked about getting a bench judgement. Glicker said that after speaking with Dancey he spoke with several lawyers and he said that they all thought that a bench judgement was likely. It doesn't sound like any of the lawyers here think that.

joe b.

For the uninitiated what is a bench judgement and what would it do?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Oof. Of the many ... interesting .... lawsuits out there, the strike suit is among the most ... interesting.

Dismissed with prejudice before discovery. Invest in a good litigator when you need one.