Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Maxperson" data-source="post: 8902270" data-attributes="member: 23751">Irrevocable is enough.  If [USER=7034611]@mamba[/USER] was correct in his assertion that perpetual means irrevocable, then lawyers would never have bothered to clarify licenses by adding irrevocable to them. They wouldn't have needed to because perpetual would have been sufficient. It's not.The lawyers added it because perpetual only means that the license is good for an indefinite amount of time. Some courts only look at the document to see if a license was meant to be irrevocable or not, and some courts look beyond at other documentation and testimony.  There is no clear precedent for WotC to hang it's hat on here.  Lawyers here and elsewhere are split on whether WotC can revoke the license or not.If OGL 1.0a had the term irrevocable in it, WotC would be stupid to actually sue anyone and claim "deauthorization" was different from revocation.  Deauthorization is only being used right now because OGL 1.0a doesn't say that it's irrevocable.</blockquote>