Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8896476" data-attributes="member: 42582">Even if the OGL did include the word &quot;irrevocable&quot;, WotC could still purport to revoke its existing licence agreements (or some elements of them). Contractual terms don't exercise agency - they can't stop a party from trying to break the contract by acting in ways they promised not to do.If X's business model depends upon a contractual licence from W, X is always vulnerable to W changing its mind about what they think (or what to present themselves as thinking) the agreement does or does not permit.As [USER=6777331]@Matt Thomason[/USER] knows, I think the better view is that WotC lacks the legal power to revoke existing agreements under the OGL v 1.0/10.a. But if no one is prepared to defend their contractual rights, that proposition will not be put to the test! An agreement in similar terms but including the word &quot;irrevocable&quot; might be clearer or less clear in this respect - [USER=10531]@see[/USER]'s suggested draft not far upthread both contains a statement of irrevocability and establishes a possibility of termination, and so in my view is not free of interpretive complexity. But it likewise would not provide any protection against WotC's purported exercise of conjectured contractual powers unless parties to it were prepared to defend their rights under it.At least, this is how it seems to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8896476, member: 42582"] Even if the OGL did include the word "irrevocable", WotC could still [i]purport[/i] to revoke its existing licence agreements (or some elements of them). Contractual terms don't exercise agency - they can't stop a party from trying to break the contract by acting in ways they promised not to do. If X's business model depends upon a contractual licence from W, X is always vulnerable to W changing its mind about what they think (or what to present themselves as thinking) the agreement does or does not permit. As [USER=6777331]@Matt Thomason[/USER] knows, I think the better view is that WotC lacks the legal power to revoke existing agreements under the OGL v 1.0/10.a. But if no one is prepared to defend their contractual rights, that proposition will not be put to the test! An agreement in similar terms but including the word "irrevocable" might be clearer or less clear in this respect - [USER=10531]@see[/USER]'s suggested draft not far upthread both contains a statement of irrevocability and establishes a possibility of termination, and so in my view is not free of interpretive complexity. But it likewise would not provide any protection against WotC's purported exercise of conjectured contractual powers unless parties to it were prepared to defend their rights under it. At least, this is how it seems to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification