Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kigmatzomat" data-source="post: 8898679" data-attributes="member: 9254">The OGL was based on the GPL v2, which had been around for about a decade. V2 did not include the word &quot;irrevocable&quot;.&nbsp; From what I recall, it was during the many SCO lawsuits in the mid 2000s that the combination of legal phrases used around &quot;perpetual&quot; and &quot;authorized&quot; was not equivalent to &quot;irrevocable&quot; leading to the term being in GPL v3.However, it is notable that a LOT of software is still GPL v2, notably the Linux kernel.&nbsp; If WotC were to be successful in arguing the OGL could be broken, tomorrow Linus Torvalds could revoke the license for the Linux kernel and the world would fall apart. Same goes for any developer of a key bit of ubiquitious software infrastructure who didn't assign their rights to the FSF or similar entity and, more specifically, their heirs.&nbsp; If Linus died while owning his copyrights and his kids were like the Hasbro execs, well, bad things.As such, any actual lawsuits filed by Hasbro/WotC would almost certainly result in some of the most capable contract law firms being unleashed on Hasbro, in a mix of pro bono and amicus forms. It would be pointed out in very stern terms that should Hasbro prevail against these legal titans, Hasbro itself certainly has a ton of GPL v2 code in its many digital offerings (mobile apps &amp; DDB) as well as its corporate infrastructure and those would almost instantly be deauthorized. Not necessarily for the whole world, but for Hasbro in particular, either directly or indirectly. So if they like their little game company being part of the modern world, able to use any computer software newer than Windows 3.11 and services more advanced than a fax machine, they should quietly walk away and never speak of this again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kigmatzomat, post: 8898679, member: 9254"] The OGL was based on the GPL v2, which had been around for about a decade. V2 did not include the word "irrevocable". From what I recall, it was during the many SCO lawsuits in the mid 2000s that the combination of legal phrases used around "perpetual" and "authorized" was not equivalent to "irrevocable" leading to the term being in GPL v3. However, it is notable that a [b][i]LOT[/i][/b][i][/i] of software is still GPL v2, notably the Linux kernel. If WotC were to be successful in arguing the OGL could be broken, tomorrow Linus Torvalds could revoke the license for the Linux kernel and the world would fall apart. Same goes for any developer of a key bit of ubiquitious software infrastructure who didn't assign their rights to the FSF or similar entity and, more specifically, their heirs. If Linus died while owning his copyrights and his kids were like the Hasbro execs, well, bad things. As such, any actual lawsuits filed by Hasbro/WotC would almost certainly result in some of the most capable contract law firms being unleashed on Hasbro, in a mix of pro bono and amicus forms. It would be pointed out in very stern terms that should Hasbro prevail against these legal titans, Hasbro itself certainly has a ton of GPL v2 code in its many digital offerings (mobile apps & DDB) as well as its corporate infrastructure and those would almost instantly be deauthorized. Not necessarily for the whole world, but for Hasbro in particular, either directly or indirectly. So if they like their little game company being part of the modern world, able to use any computer software newer than Windows 3.11 and services more advanced than a fax machine, they should quietly walk away and never speak of this again. [/QUOTE]

Verification