Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ThorinTeague" data-source="post: 8900188" data-attributes="member: 7032074">I am not a lawyer just saying I'm not a lawyer to not get in trouble, I'm actually not a lawyer.Like, literally.In my 110% unproffessional opinion, after sleeping and thinking on it for a while, I think OA COULD be TECHNICALLY correct that this document is legally revocable. (Which come on folks, isn't that the best kind of correct?).They're just completely whitewashing the history, the narrative surrounding it's existence, why it was written, and I mean come on, I can't remember how many times they laughably asserted the intentions of the original authors of the license, which in and of itself (let's pretend for a second that they weren't so off-base with their assertions), I always thought lawyers would avoid asserting the implied intentions of the author of a legal document as much as possible. They themselves called this the &quot;four corners&quot; principle. Law is notoriously terrible at determining intentions... or so I thought... isn't it? I say that not as a derogatory. That's just the deal and everybody knows it. Or so I thought.But I mean... that whole train of thought of course excludes the fact that the authors of the license in question are not gone, and are not staying silent. They are publicly stating what they intended when they themselves wrote it, which is 100% the opposite of what OA was asserting they were. Now their response to this in the comments has been that you can't take the authors intentions into account... but it's cool to speculate about intentions on the show?Yeah I mean if the license can be revoked because the original authors used the word &quot;perpetual&quot; instead of &quot;irrevocable,&quot; and WoTC exercises that legal right, that means... what?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ThorinTeague, post: 8900188, member: 7032074"] I am not a lawyer just saying I'm not a lawyer to not get in trouble, I'm actually not a lawyer. Like, literally. In my 110% unproffessional opinion, after sleeping and thinking on it for a while, I think OA COULD be [B]TECHNICALLY [/B]correct that this document is legally revocable. (Which come on folks, isn't that the best kind of correct?). They're just [B][I]completely [/I][/B]whitewashing the history, the narrative surrounding it's existence, why it was written, and I mean come on, I can't remember how many times they laughably asserted the intentions of the original authors of the license, which in and of itself (let's pretend for a second that they weren't so off-base with their assertions), I always thought lawyers would avoid asserting the implied intentions of the author of a legal document as much as possible. They themselves called this the "four corners" principle. Law is notoriously terrible at determining intentions... or so I thought... isn't it? I say that not as a derogatory. That's just the deal and everybody knows it. Or so I thought. But I mean... that whole train of thought of course excludes the fact that the authors of the license in question are not gone, and are not staying silent. They are publicly stating what they intended when they themselves wrote it, which is 100% the opposite of what OA was asserting they were. Now their response to this in the comments has been that you can't take the authors intentions into account... but it's cool to speculate about intentions on the show? Yeah I mean if the license can be revoked because the original authors used the word "perpetual" instead of "irrevocable," and WoTC exercises that legal right, that means... what? [/QUOTE]

Verification