Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="slaymaker1907" data-source="post: 8884593" data-attributes="member: 7039872">There is strong precedent for an open license that allows for sub licensing to be irrevocable. In fact, it would cost the software industry tens of billions in dollars if this were not the case almost overnight. The MIT license mentions nothing about being irrevocable yet it widely assumed to be as such (otherwise there would be huge risk in using any software library under the MIT license).What companies can (and have done) do to move away from an open license is to release any new versions of said software under a more restrictive license. However, users can and have either just used the old and open version or even just forked said code to have do things like security updates.WotC is playing a stupid game here and is going to win stupid prizes. I think their lawyers are awful (ones that know what they are doing will either just use an existing license or carefully modify an existing open license) and this is going to cost them huge amounts money in legal fees.</blockquote>