I am not sure why people are using emotional arguments against what pemerton is saying.
<snip>
If I am remembering right, he is not even a USA lawyer and has not passed the bar exam in a U.S. state.
I'm Australian. I'm not admitted to practise in any jurisdiction - I am an academic. I teach both private law and public law. I have published on some aspects of IP law, but it's not my field - I worked with a colleague who is an expert in trademark law. My expertise that is relevant in this context is in estoppel (as that doctrine works in Australia), private law theory, and legal interpretation (both theory and practice).
The arguments that I'm flagging - which focus on textual interpretation of the contract against the background of general private law principles - reflect my expertise. I do my best to make it clear that I'm not being dogmatic, and to explain what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of various interpretive arguments.
WotC's conduct and representations in its FAQ, on mailing lists, and in other correspondence, are also highly relevant to this OGL situation. Just as I said in 2008, they may establish an estoppel. And they may also be relevant to interpreting the contract. But I am not saying as much about them, for the reason that whether and how those facts could be led in litigation isn't something I can comment on with any expertise - except to say that
those details will turn heavily on the broader details of WotC's case and the defence led by a 3PP.