I have already provided many citations throughout my arguments. But anyway, here are more:
...
Here's another quote from a federal court:
"A license by definition is not a permanent entitlement and does not operate to create an estate in land in the licensee. It merely constitutes permission to do certain things on the licensor's land. The licensor ordinarily can revoke it at any time, with or without a reason..." (applies to land, but the concept is the same).
Kapadia v. Chi. Transit Auth., No. 87 C 1919, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4156, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 1987)
...
I can keep going, but I won't.
Because no other lawyer on this thread has cited a
single source to support their arguments. I am the only one.
I don't have time to refute this point-by-point (given that I have actual work to do for clients), but the above, while not false, is extremely misleading.
For the non-lawyers out there: whenever you see the word "license" in this context you should interpret it as "permission to use." So, it is 100% correct to say that if person A gives person B a license (permission to use) some property or entitlement of person A, the license (permission to use) does not itself create an irrevocable right for person B to continue to use the property/entitlement. Or to put it differently, a mere license can be revoked by the licensor.
However, if person A and person B reach an
agreement pursuant to which person A grants person B a license (permission to use) some property/entitlement of person A, then person A can revoke the license
only pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
This is the difference between: (1) "I grant you permission to attend a dinner party in my dining room at 8 pm tonight" (mere license - revocable at will by the licensor); and (2) "If you sign this document and pay me $5, I grant you permission to live in the bedroom of my house for one month" (license to use land embedded in an agreement - not revocable by licensor except pursuant to the agreement). In context, this makes intuitive sense. If the user does not pay for the use of the land, there is no agreement, and the licensor can revoke the license. However, if the user does pay for the use of the land (and there is an otherwise valid agreement), then the licensor cannot unilaterally revoke the license.
Bringing this back to the OGL: this is why it is important to establish whether the OGL is an agreement. If the OGL is not an agreement, but is a mere license, then it can be revoked at will by the licensor. If the OGL is an agreement, then the license embedded in the agreement can be revoked only to the extent permitted by the agreement.
Cases and commentary that reference a license but which do not involve an agreement are completely beside the point. As a practical matter, people (including courts) often conflate a mere license and a license embedded in an agreement because (in context) it is clear what is under discussion. However, citation to caselaw or commentary that discusses the revocability of a mere license does not say anything at all about a license embedded in an agreement.
As noted in my prior post, the OGL has all the hallmarks of an agreement, i.e. an offer, a specified method of acceptance and a description of consideration. (Legal capacity of parties and illegality are not at issue).
Accordingly, a proponent of the view that WOTC may unilaterally revoke the OGL must take one of two positions:
1. Either the OGL does not constitute an agreement between WOTC and the user; or
2. The agreement constituting the OGL permits WOTC to unilaterally revoke the license.*
[* For the sake of completeness, this would include the position that the OGL agreement is revocable because the license failed to use "magic words" such as the word "irrevocable." Sometimes, legal agreements do require certain precise words for their meaning, such as in the creation of a power of attorney or the conveyance of land in certain states. Although I am willing to be convinced otherwise, a brief review of two copyright treatises (Epstein on Intellectual Property and Goldstein on Copyright), I believe that there no such magic words needed to license intellectual property. Instead, the scope and revocability of a license to use copyrighted materials is subject to ordinary principles of contractual interpretation.]
For what it is worth, the law, including law relating to contracts and copyright is almost infinitely complex and nuanced. There are exceptions to everything, including things I've said above. If you want to know all the complexity and nuance, don't look in a forum post.
The fact that I don't know what exceptions, complexity and nuance are applicable to your specific situation is one reason (among many) that this is not legal advice. So, I'll say what you hear so many lawyers say. This is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You can rely on my legal advice only when we have discussed your specific situation and you have entered into an engagement letter with me or my law firm, and have agreed to pay me or my law firm for the provision of legal advice.
Cheerio