Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[DavyGreenwind]

So, no. I don't agree with your certainty, or the legislative analogy. Contract law varies greatly from state-to-state, and basic issues like whether or not reliance (and subsequent work) on a non-exclusive license makes it irrevocable turns on issues of state law, or even whether a license might be an implied contract. None of these are similar to legislation binding future legislatures- which is (afaik) incredibly settled.

Given the inherent complexities of the issues involved, I would be very hesitant to offer any kind of opinion without reviewing the pertinent parts of the Restatement of Contracts and Nimmer, and having a plausible jurisdiction to think about in terms of the law.

Also? It seems like work. I'm more into unicorns and stuff.

ETA- that said, I appreciate your efforts, although I am wondering when someone is going to start talking about the differences with broilers and young chickens.

Hahaha, I thought about the young chickens.

And if I sound certain, that's on me. You are right, none of this is remotely settled and could have totally different outcomes depending on state and federal circuit.

For me, the bottom line is I don't see a United States judge making irrevocable a license that does not say "irrevocable." That's totally contrary to US common law and the restatement.

For the legislative analogy, I respect your opinion, but stand by it as a useful academic comparison.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

That would imply that Open Software is not open either - the licence can be revoked?

My feeling is that if WoTC-Hasbro really pushes it, they will get a massive fight from interested parties. And they would probably get mauled, at least. They would be sensible not to try to 'revoke' the OGL 1.0. But conversely I do think they can get away with saying Section 9 of OGL 1.0 no longer applies to material published under OGL 1.1, and your legislation analogy I think may have some merit there.

Open software is different, because software code and copyright is a huge can of worms. I only know enough about it to know to stay the hell away from it.

 

[S'mon]

Open software is different, because software code and copyright is a huge can of worms. I only know enough about it to know to stay the hell away from it.

The code is copyright protected as a literary work. Normal contract rules apply to software licensing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Hahaha, I thought about the young chickens.

And if I sound certain, that's on me. You are right, none of this is remotely settled and could have totally different outcomes depending on state and federal circuit.

For me, the bottom line is I don't see a United States judge making irrevocable a license that does not say "irrevocable." That's totally contrary to US common law and the restatement.

For the legislative analogy, I respect your opinion, but stand by it as a useful academic comparison.

Eh, I try to avoid definite statements. For example, I know that judges can, and do, make licenses irrevocable by construing them as a contract supported by consideration ..... given that there are mutual obligations, an actual termination clause, and the possibility of the proverbial peppercorn (not to mention the change in status), it's rather hard to say.

But who knows? It's all idle speculation at this point.

 

[Mistwell]

This, I believe, is the trickiest argument of all. But I stand by my original comment. Let me give you an example.

So, quick humble brag, I write laws for a living. Sometimes, a senator or representative will tell me, "Write this law that says X, and that also says that no future legislature can ever repeal this law."

I always tell them this: that won't work. If a future legislature wanted to repeal your law, they would just cross out "X" and also cross out no future legislature can ever repeal this law." They would repeal the law forbidding them from repealing the law.

So, it really comes down to this. "You can use any prior version of this License" is true until it isn't. They can revoke that, just like they can revoke the rest of the license, Q&A notwithstanding. The Q&A indicates the status quo, certainly, but is not binding forever. I always thought that the section saying you can use prior versions was only a clarification. I think WotC's answer here is a little disingenuous. It may be a statement of their current policy, but I don't think it is an accurate representation of their own legal rights.

You know government legislative drafting isn't private open licensing and doesn't even draw from the same body of law and rules.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

You know government legislative drafting isn't private open licensing and doesn't even draw from the same body of law and rules.

It is a useful analogy nonetheless. See my response above.

 

[Mistwell]

Open software is different, because software code and copyright is a huge can of worms. I only know enough about it to know to stay the hell away from it.

Wait, you're speaking to open licensing rules but you stay away from open software, where all the court cases about open licensing can be found?

I'm going to give some genuine advice which you're free to ignore - you're making a mistake by speaking with authority on this topic. This is a complicated field and if you don't know open licensing software caselaw, you're probably a tad outside your areas of legal focus as there is a great deal of overlap.

 

[S'mon]

Wait, you're speaking to open licensing rules but you stay away from open software, where all the court cases about open licensing can be found?

I'm going to give some genuine advice which you're free to ignore - you're making a mistake by speaking with authority on this topic. This is a complicated field and if you don't know open licensing software caselaw, you're probably a tad outside your areas of legal focus as there is a great deal of overlap.

I think OP underestimated how many other lawyer nerds frequent EN World.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think OP underestimated how many other lawyer nerds frequent EN World.

Three lawyers, four opinions.

Same as it ever was.

 

[Ulfgeir]

Three lawyers, four opinions.

Same as it ever was.

And all are mutually exclusive... As if it was done by deception, trickery and vaguely formulated statements. Everyone likens lawyers to devils, but seems Fey is more appropriate.