NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="see" data-source="post: 8896757" data-attributes="member: 10531">I agree entirely.As far as I am concerned, adding the "irrevocable" statements would do exactly two things. It would serve as symbol that WotC would not in the short term throw their weight around, and it would avoid a WotC of ten years from now having one of its lawyers say, in an internal discussion "Well, it doesn't say irrevocable, so we can make the argument we can revoke it under (unilateral license precedents)".That isn't as good for the health of the license as someone actually standing up to WotC to defend their rights OGL 1.0a, and winning in court as necessary. But losing a fight isn't something WotC can unilaterally do, and they certainly can't credibly bind themselves to not trying to throw their weight around in the future.So here in the context of a thread on "Can WotC be forgiven?", I would suggest to WotC that they make something like my proposed guarantees in the license. That's the best they can do to bind whomever winds up owning the copyrights to the SRDs in the future. (Based on my vague layman's understanding of bankruptcy law, that might well fail to survive a liquidation where a private equity firm buys the copyrights in an auction, but, the best possible is the best possible.)In the context of what actions should be taken by 3PPs, I would say "First and foremost, band together to defend the OGL 1.0a in court. Setting up a license like ORC and preparing a theoretically non-derivative but similar system so that there's somewhere to retreat if that fails is not a bad fallback plan, but first and foremost, defend the OGL 1.0a."</blockquote>

Verification