Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Matt Thomason" data-source="post: 8905989" data-attributes="member: 6777331">The only lawyers saying that it is are those who have misunderstood the contract to be a unilateral grant and not a bilateral agreement because they don't seem to have read any further than the word "license" and assumed it was all one way.It is fairly obvious to anyone that actually reads it that it is the latter due to the obligations and requirements it puts on the licensee. This particular legal fact is something I as a layman could likely argue in front of a judge without the need for any legal counsel (note: while this may actually work, it really is NOT a good idea, I'm just using this to illustrate how obvious it is) whatsoever because it is so obvious.  So, we can very easily throw away any idea of Wizards being able to simply revoke the OGL legally.De-authorization requires that both sides agree on a de-authorization procedure either as a part of the contract or afterwards.  So that's almost certainly out too, they can't just unilaterally invent one now.That only leaves them with three options:- Putting de-authorization of the existing license in the new license terms, so anyone agreeing to 1.1/2.0/whatever they're calling it this week agrees as a part of that that the old license is de-authorized for them.  This appears to be the most likely thing they've planned from the start, under the assumption everyone will simply believe it's de-authorized for everyone and stop using it anyway.  "If we say we can do it, who is going to actually question it?"  Oops, seems like everyone did.- No longer offering any new instances of OGL licences.  This may sound effective, but in reality the fact they are unable to cancel OGL sublicenses means it's about as effective as a chocolate fireguard, with the only real result being a ton of bad PR for them.- Hoping every individual 3PP is too scared because they don't have the resources to fight them in court.  They're half-right.  Individually, sure, most probably could not.  However, this assumes everyone else is willing to stand by and watch as they take us out one at a time with C&Ds. I would be willing to put money at this point on whomever gets hit first finding they're suddenly not short of legal defence funds due to the number of people that want this to go to court so we can get a ruling.</blockquote>

Verification