Search results

Licenses CAN be irrevocable. That's not my point. My point is that the OGL is not. The presumption against irrevocability is so strong that courts generally do not hold a license irrevocable unless it says "irrevocable." The OGL doesn't say "irrevocable." Period. End. That's all most courts...

:oops: It doesn't seem like everyone knows that... No, read them yourself if you care. I look forward to any citations you can provide to support your own arguments. I really do recommend that article if you can access it.

I have already provided many citations throughout my arguments. But anyway, here are more: Here's a quote from a fabulous article on the subject that really drives my point home: "The contract theory of license also creates obstacles and confusion in other contexts. Some copyright owners - as...

I see people saying that "perpetual" is ambiguous or depends on the context. This is not the case in American licensing law; "perpetual" has a very specific, standard, boilerplate meaning, and irrevocable is absolutely distinct. Here is an example: an agreement between GlassHouse and Dell (link...

I see what you mean, and I think your interpretation is reasonable. I just don't think it'll be the winning one, if it ever gets to court. The lack of the word "irrevocable" really cinches it for me. Licenses with no duration specified are often considered to be revocable at will (not in some...

This is a common misconception: "perpetual" does not mean "irrevocable." "Perpetual" means it has no expiration date (as opposed to a license that is only good for five years, for instance), but even a perpetual license can be revoked. And though WotC gave Paizo permission to sublicense the...

Update: if this gizmodo article is to be believed, it looks like they are going to try and revoke the old license. I also want to clarify, that I'm pro-open source stuff. I just think the foundations are shakier than people think. I hope WotC does not revoke it! And if they do, well, we'll just...

Now there's an interesting case! I just read it. I believe it is relevant, but does not quite hit the mark. In that case, the licensor sued the licensee for breaching the license, or publishing outside the scope of the license. That case is about publications before the license is revoked. Their...

It is a pleasant surprise!

But only one of us has cited any sources.

As a matter of open licensing jurisprudence, those cases are indeed important. My comments about software being a can of worms is more about the copyright aspect (source code vs object code and all that nonsense). So you are right, case law regarding open software is important in licensing...

It is a useful analogy nonetheless. See my response above.

Open software is different, because software code and copyright is a huge can of worms. I only know enough about it to know to stay the hell away from it.:LOL:

Hahaha, I thought about the young chickens. And if I sound certain, that's on me. You are right, none of this is remotely settled and could have totally different outcomes depending on state and federal circuit. For me, the bottom line is I don't see a United States judge making irrevocable a...

Wow! I loved my Contracts class. And I think our disagreement highlights the difficulty of the question. The reliance principle might be enough to overcome parol evidence issues, but there are other issues which, in my opinion, tip the balance away from irrevocability. 1. In licensing law...

That is absolutely the nature of law.

True. But it is apt as an example, because of the strange nature of an open license. An open license is not like other contracts, whereby two parties agree to take on mutual obligations for a limited period of time. An open license, strangely enough now that I think about it, acts much like...

For this, I refer you to the parol evidence rule, which basically says that discussions or agreements outside of the contract are generally only acceptable to prove the meaning of ambiguous terms (or to prove fraud). If a term is not ambiguous, a court generally will not look at outside evidence...

This, I believe, is the trickiest argument of all. But I stand by my original comment. Let me give you an example. So, quick humble brag, I write laws for a living. Sometimes, a senator or representative will tell me, "Write this law that says X, and that also says that no future legislature...

You make a great point, and I will defer to Ph.D. I agree that an author's "intent" qua work of art is distinct from a party's "intent" qua contract. But I think the question posed, which I attempted to answer, blurs the two. Is the SRD a legal contract, or a work of art? One could argue that...