Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9632454" data-attributes="member: 8461">Except neither of those use &quot;withdraw&quot; as a term, meaning that they don't address that particular point. (My saying that, it should be clear, is a reference to how the OGL could obviously not be revoked, and yet WotC's threat of doing so was based around the idea that it didn't expressly say it was irrevocable.)No, it wouldn't &quot;invalidate the entire thing&quot; nor would it be &quot;useless.&quot; Other content that was released would remain released, and further (non-derivative) content could still be released under it. People having their faith shaken does not equate to it becoming &quot;useless&quot; (or &quot;revoked&quot; or &quot;invalidated&quot; or any similar such term). Insisting that it does doesn't make it so.No, that's not the point. The point is that a hypothetical threat to &quot;withdraw&quot; content (based around the idea that because that specific word isn't utilized in the license itself) is exceptionally dubious for its lack of legal sophistication, and yet its accompanying uncertainty about that and the prospect of potentially going bankrupt in an effort to try and prove it would still be sufficient to scare off at least some of the third-party community (even if some of them think that Microsoft will ride in on a white horse to save them).No, they would not &quot;suddenly become infringing,&quot; because the hypothetical posited granted that existing uses of a withdrawn work are still valid; it's only things which utilize that work after the announced date of withdrawal that would be held to be infringing. There's no retroactive infringement in that scenario.Cool.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 9632454, member: 8461"] Except neither of those use "withdraw" as a term, meaning that they don't address that particular point. (My saying that, it should be clear, is a reference to how the OGL could obviously not be revoked, and yet WotC's threat of doing so was based around the idea that it didn't expressly say it was irrevocable.) No, it wouldn't "invalidate the entire thing" nor would it be "useless." Other content that was released would remain released, and further (non-derivative) content could still be released under it. People having their faith shaken does not equate to it becoming "useless" (or "revoked" or "invalidated" or any similar such term). Insisting that it does doesn't make it so. No, that's not the point. The point is that a hypothetical threat to "withdraw" content (based around the idea that because that specific word isn't utilized in the license itself) is exceptionally dubious for its lack of legal sophistication, and yet its accompanying uncertainty about that and the prospect of potentially going bankrupt in an effort to try and prove it would still be sufficient to scare off at least some of the third-party community (even if some of them think that Microsoft will ride in on a white horse to save them). No, they would not "suddenly become infringing," because the hypothetical posited granted that existing uses of a withdrawn work are still valid; it's only things which utilize that work [B]after[/B] the announced date of withdrawal that would be held to be infringing. There's no retroactive infringement in that scenario. Cool. [/QUOTE]

Verification