Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ThorinTeague" data-source="post: 8901739" data-attributes="member: 7032074">I am not a lawyer!(BTW, there's a second one now, OA0677... I think it's pretty much just doubling down but I feel no compunction to listen.)In my earlier posts, as I calmed down and slept a couple days, I postulated (in my 110% unqualified, unprofessional, untrained opinion), that OA0675's assertion that &quot;perpetual&quot; does not imply &quot;irrevocable;&quot; their assertion that the owner of a &quot;perpetual&quot; license CAN revoke it, is probably correct. E.g., put the &quot;perpetual vs. irrevocable&quot; idea in a vacuum, seal it up in a bottle, take it into court, and I felt confident in assuming OA has a case. An out-of-context, poorly spirited, exploitive case... but a case.But then I got curious.I have no authority to judge the validity of my sources or lack thereof so I can only tell you what I saw. I started searching for the legal definition of &quot;perpetual.&quot; The first three sources didn't address the issue explicitly at all, but they all said to the effect of (paraphrasing) that perpetual means a license that is unaffected by the passage of time. Implying that something other than the passage of time can indeed affect it. Again, looking good for OA.The fourth source I looked at addressed the question directly. It said, &quot;A perpetual statute until repealed by an act professing to repeal it, ...&quot; Right. OA is correct. Concluded.BUT WAIT.There's this one juicy, sexy little part of a sentance. Something that grabbed my attention pretty hard. I again am not a lawyer but if correct, this seems to blow OA's entire point completely out of the water: &quot;notwithstanding an implication to the contrary.&quot;Uhhhh.... hmmm. An implication to the contrary. Gosh. Do public statements from the authors of the OGL, directly contradicting the revocability of the OGL constitute an &quot;implication&quot; to the contrary? Does Paizo's unlitigated success from 2008-2012 constitute an &quot;implication&quot; to the contrary? Does the fact that everyone--EVERYONE knows what this license means, and have known what it means, for over 22 years, constitute an &quot;implication&quot; to the contrary?I don't know, legally, but those are some pretty strong implications to the contrary.From where I stand (in my completely unqualified opinion), OA is looking legally wrong to me now. Not just in a human/contextual/non-legalistic/narrative way, but actually legally wrong.Love to hear any thoughts that might set me straight. And I'll keep digging as time permits.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ThorinTeague, post: 8901739, member: 7032074"] [I]I am not a lawyer![/I] (BTW, there's a second one now, OA0677... I think it's pretty much just doubling down but I feel no compunction to listen.) In my earlier posts, as I calmed down and slept a couple days, I postulated (in my 110% unqualified, unprofessional, untrained opinion), that OA0675's assertion that "perpetual" does not imply "irrevocable;" their assertion that the owner of a "perpetual" license [I]CAN revoke [/I]it, is probably correct. E.g., put the "perpetual vs. irrevocable" idea in a vacuum, seal it up in a bottle, take it into court, and I felt confident in assuming OA has a case. An out-of-context, poorly spirited, exploitive case... but a case. But then I got curious. I have no authority to judge the validity of my sources or lack thereof so I can only tell you what I saw. I started searching for the legal definition of "perpetual." The first three sources didn't address the issue explicitly at all, but they all said to the effect of (paraphrasing) that perpetual means a license that is unaffected by the passage of time. Implying that something [I]other [/I]than the passage of time can indeed affect it. Again, looking good for OA. The [B]fourth [/B]source I looked at addressed the question directly. It said, "A perpetual statute until repealed by an act professing to repeal it, ..." Right. OA is correct. Concluded. [B][I]BUT WAIT.[/I][/B] There's this one juicy, sexy little part of a sentance. Something that grabbed my attention pretty hard. I again am not a lawyer but if correct, this seems to blow OA's entire point completely out of the water: "notwithstanding an implication to the contrary." Uhhhh.... hmmm. An implication to the contrary. Gosh. Do public statements from the [I]authors[/I] of the OGL, directly contradicting the revocability of the OGL constitute an "implication" to the contrary? Does Paizo's unlitigated success from 2008-2012 constitute an "implication" to the contrary? Does the [B]fact[/B] that [B][I]everyone--EVERYONE[/I][/B] knows what this license means, and have known what it means, for over 22 years, constitute an "implication" to the contrary? I don't know, legally, but those are some pretty strong implications to the contrary. From where I stand (in my completely unqualified opinion), OA is looking legally wrong to me now. Not just in a human/contextual/non-legalistic/narrative way, but actually legally wrong. Love to hear any thoughts that might set me straight. And I'll keep digging as time permits. [/QUOTE]

Verification