Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8884145" data-attributes="member: 42582">In my defence: the leaked materials are not a legal instrument. They're a gloss on one, or a summary of it. I think that's pretty obvious.So they don't need to be interpreted in a legal sense at all - they have no legal meaning. Rather, they (plus the press release) tell us what the new legal instrument will look like. I've set out my conjecture, with reasons, in post 562 upthread.WotC appear to make some claims that are at odds with my conjecture. That's not something I've overlooked. It's because they are making claims about their legal powers that I think are extremely doubtful at best. Whether someone wants to describe them as lying, or misleading, or exaggerating, or omitting, or being confused about their own legal position, is up to them - I'm just trying to give people as accurate a picture I can of the legal details of the situation.In relation to section 9 in particular, there is a lot of speculation about it which rests (in my view) on a failure to actually read it closely so as to ascertain its legal meaning. When this is done, I think it's pretty clear what "authorised" means and what the legal operation of the section is.WotC have full power to retract their standing offer to license their work under the current OGL. In that sense they can "de-authorise" OGL v 1.0a. But that doesn't effect any existing rights (including, I slightly tentatively suggest and [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] more confidently suggests, the power to sub-license licensed OGC).They can also draft a v 1.1 that cuts off the 1.0/1.0a eco-system. Upthread I've explained, in general terms, how I would draft this.Perhaps they also think they can revoke all existing licence agreements. It's mysterious to me where they think this power comes from, given that a basic principle of contract law is that contracts are binding and can't be unilaterally terminated. But I find it almost inconceivable that they think it comes from section 9; as opposed to from general principles of the sort that the OP of this thread discusses. I disagree with the OP, but his arguments are quite coherent. Whereas I find the section 9 argument strained at best.</blockquote>

Verification