Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8889684" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=20741]@Steel_Wind[/USER] In your example I'm not sure on what basis I'm revoking against Todd. I get that he has no lien because he's done no work, but the lien and the licence seem like&nbsp; different things: under the contract he still has a licence to be there and to do some work in the remaining period of the contract. If I'm revoking Todd's licence to be on my premises for some sort of breach - eg the licence was for the purpose of doing work, and he's not been conforming to that requirement - then in this context that is analogous to section 13 termination for breach.Anyway, my intuition remains the same - if, as the OP asserts, WotC has always enjoyed a right at will to terminate the OGL with a direct licensee, then I don't see how it can lack that right against sub-licensees. If you are simply reiterating that the OP is wrong in the context of a contractual licence than I agree. But the post I was initially replying to was accepting the OP's claim as between WotC and direct licensees, and then wanting to deny that it would extend further to sub-licensees. And that is what I don't consider plausible.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8889684, member: 42582"] [USER=20741]@Steel_Wind[/USER] In your example I'm not sure on what basis I'm revoking against Todd. I get that he has no lien because he's done no work, but the lien and the licence seem like different things: under the contract he still has a licence to be there and to do some work in the remaining period of the contract. If I'm revoking Todd's licence to be on my premises for some sort of breach - eg the licence was for the purpose of doing work, and he's not been conforming to that requirement - then in this context that is analogous to section 13 termination for breach. Anyway, my intuition remains the same - if, as the OP asserts, WotC has [i]always[/i] enjoyed a right at will to terminate the OGL with a direct licensee, then I don't see how it can lack that right against sub-licensees. If you are simply reiterating that the OP is wrong in the context of a contractual licence than I agree. But the post I was initially replying to was accepting the OP's claim as between WotC and direct licensees, and then wanting to deny that it would extend further to sub-licensees. And that is what I don't consider plausible. [/QUOTE]

Verification