No. It all depended on the context of what was written in the document and sometimes the intent as shown in other documents or testimony. There's no clear precedent that perpetual meant irrevocable.
that is why I said pretty good
To find out of OGL 1.0a meant that, it would have to be tested in court. Lawyers are split on whether it does or does not, so there can be no real confidence that it is irrevocable.
yeah, there is always the chance you get a rogue judge. Lawyers specialize in different fields, so some not agreeing does not mean all that much to me.
Not according to all the lawyers that I've been reading that are talking about OGL 1.0a.
see above, precendence favors the interpretation as irrevocable pretty strongly from my understanding. That being said there is never certainty when you find yourself in front of a judge.
Yep. And that reason is that with the revocability up in the air, they felt it was stronger to go with deauthorization.
see, not even WotC thinks they have a good chance there, and even deauthorization is already very much a gamble.
This is more about scaring people away than actually having a valid case as far as I can tell
Ultimately none of this matters, the original point was that you said they would not even have tried this if the license contained the word irrevocable, and I pointed out that they would still have tried, because they are not attempting to revoke it now either (because their chances are so slim), but try to de-authorize it, where the inclusion of ‘irrevocable’ would not have helped you at all, contrary to your claim