3 ms·

that was apparently covered. If you made something based on the license while it was in effect, you are perpetually covered. Once they revoke the license, you

that was apparently covered. If you made something based on the license while it was in effect, you are perpetually covered. Once they revoke the license, you can no longer make new work. That's how I read it anyway

tsimionescu 4y ago
That's a separate matter. Perpetual just means it doesn't expire on its own - only if revoked by the authors. Separately, if you based a business on creating a work with a valid license, if the license is later revoked, there is a good chance courts will protect your right to keep selling the work you based your business on, even if the current license no longer allows it - that is what I understood the OP was explaining.
- darreninthenet 4y ago
  The problem with relying on a court to protect your small OGL derived business is that Hasbro has much deeper pockets to keep somebody tied up in litigation and appeals for years, that they probably can't afford.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Hasbro doesn't want to waste their money on your $0 infringement either.
    - darreninthenet 4y ago
      You're missing the bigger picture... keep small fry tied up, make them not win and then nobody else has a precedent ruling. Take a proper money making business to court first time and you risk them actually fighting and winning.
alexvoda 4y ago
Even if thechange does not apply to works that have already been published, this is still newspeak. This is lawyers chosing words to mean what they say they mean whenever they say it. The Apache license does have the word irrevocable. But BSD, MIT, EPL and others do not. Does that mean that if the copyright holder for lib v1.0 decides to change the licence for lib v1.0 (not subsequent versions) to something restrictive then everything using it gets frozen in time and nothing new can be made?
- hgsgm 4y ago
  That's precisely the question up for debate. The answer is unknown.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    Right, and I think the person trying to legally poke the status quo on this issue is an idiot (as in, they are in Carlo M. Cipolla's lower left quadrant) because it will either blow up in their face or it will blow up in everyone's face. Same as with Oracle vs Google, other than a bunch of court room sophists, nobody really gained anything.

tsimionescu 4y ago

That's a separate matter. Perpetual just means it doesn't expire on its own - only if revoked by the authors. Separately, if you based a business on creating a work with a valid license, if the license is later revoked, there is a good chance courts will protect your right to keep selling the work you based your business on, even if the current license no longer allows it - that is what I understood the OP was explaining.

darreninthenet 4y ago
The problem with relying on a court to protect your small OGL derived business is that Hasbro has much deeper pockets to keep somebody tied up in litigation and appeals for years, that they probably can't afford.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Hasbro doesn't want to waste their money on your $0 infringement either.
  - darreninthenet 4y ago
    You're missing the bigger picture... keep small fry tied up, make them not win and then nobody else has a precedent ruling. Take a proper money making business to court first time and you risk them actually fighting and winning.

alexvoda 4y ago

Even if thechange does not apply to works that have already been published, this is still newspeak. This is lawyers chosing words to mean what they say they mean whenever they say it. The Apache license does have the word irrevocable. But BSD, MIT, EPL and others do not. Does that mean that if the copyright holder for lib v1.0 decides to change the licence for lib v1.0 (not subsequent versions) to something restrictive then everything using it gets frozen in time and nothing new can be made?

hgsgm 4y ago
That's precisely the question up for debate. The answer is unknown.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  Right, and I think the person trying to legally poke the status quo on this issue is an idiot (as in, they are in Carlo M. Cipolla's lower left quadrant) because it will either blow up in their face or it will blow up in everyone's face. Same as with Oracle vs Google, other than a bunch of court room sophists, nobody really gained anything.