5 ms·

Having read the Gizmodo article[1] before this, I’m coming away confused about how licensing language works. In addition to revoking a “perpetual” license, ther

by hysan 4y ago

Having read the Gizmodo article[1] before this, I’m coming away confused about how licensing language works. In addition to revoking a “perpetual” license, there are hints that WotC plans to force any entity that is commercially selling products now to agree to the new license or cease sales. This sounds like they are planning to take a cut of all products by retroactively cancelling the 1.0a license. This is counter to what is explained in OP’s link about being able to continue selling existing products. Aside from the confusing “perpetual” !== “irrevocable” language, how would it be legal to suddenly start taking cuts of existing businesses? If WotC were to attempt this, would it be legal? It sounds like it would be based on the explanation of being able to revoke an existing license. But that sounds like a giant legal loophole to me. [1] https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634 https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...

checkyoursudo 4y ago
Perpetual refers to time only. Contracts have to contemplate an end date. In perpetuity is just an acknowledgement that the parties have thought about time, and have agreed that there is no natural end date, but that does not foreclose other termination triggers, like revocability.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  But on the other hands, contracts aren't revocable unless there are specific revocation provisions in the said contract.
thayne 4y ago
The MIT license also doesn't explicitly say it is irrevocable. It doesn't even say the license is perpetual. Does that mean that any software that is MIT licensed (or any of the many other licenses that doesn't have that wording) could be revoked at any time? That could have some pretty bad repercussions.
- knaik94 4y ago
  My understanding is the software released as MIT is pereptually MIT. Additional updates could change the license, but that won't retroactiely affect previous releases. The MIT license explicitly allows sublicensing. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
  - Macha 4y ago
    So does the OGL
    - trynewideas 4y ago
      The crux of the argument is OGL section 9's use of "authorized": > 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. And 1.1's rumored revocation of that authorization. And no matter how clear in common sense it might be that Hasbro shouldn't be able to do that, I don't think we're going to find out exactly how that falls apart until it's ruled upon in a court.
      - thayne 4y ago
        It isn't defined what it means for a version to be "authorized" though, which means it is ambiguous. And the FAQ for the original OGL makes it pretty clear that that intent was that once a version is authorized, it can't be un-authorized. As a layman, non-lawyer that seems like a pretty tough argument for WOTC.
- sharpneli 4y ago
  Does this mean that if I have released some MIT licensed, or contributed to a MIT licensed project, I can just call up a big company and tell them to pay me massive amounts of money now or stop using some product I have contributions in immediately? In reality obviously not. Whenever things like these happen it's interpreted in a way that the big company wins. For you not saying irrevocable doesn't mean it's revocable, but the opposite holds.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
robertlagrant 4y ago
> Aside from the confusing “perpetual” !== “irrevocable” language This on the face of it seems needlessly confusing as well. Perpetual seems to just mean "may be revoked at any time". So why use the term at all instead of just talking in terms of revocation? E.g. "irrevocable until 1 Jan 2025 except for situations listed in section 5" or "may be revoked at any time".
- AppleBananaPie 4y ago
  better marketing
- hgsgm 4y ago
  In law, "perpetual' means "indefinite", in contrast to its plain English meaning as "forever". It's nonsense like this that makes people hate the whole legal system and its players.

by hysan 4y ago

checkyoursudo 4y ago

Perpetual refers to time only. Contracts have to contemplate an end date. In perpetuity is just an acknowledgement that the parties have thought about time, and have agreed that there is no natural end date, but that does not foreclose other termination triggers, like revocability.

littlestymaar 4y ago
But on the other hands, contracts aren't revocable unless there are specific revocation provisions in the said contract.

thayne 4y ago

The MIT license also doesn't explicitly say it is irrevocable. It doesn't even say the license is perpetual. Does that mean that any software that is MIT licensed (or any of the many other licenses that doesn't have that wording) could be revoked at any time? That could have some pretty bad repercussions.

knaik94 4y ago
My understanding is the software released as MIT is pereptually MIT. Additional updates could change the license, but that won't retroactiely affect previous releases. The MIT license explicitly allows sublicensing. https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
- Macha 4y ago
  So does the OGL
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    The crux of the argument is OGL section 9's use of "authorized": > 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. And 1.1's rumored revocation of that authorization. And no matter how clear in common sense it might be that Hasbro shouldn't be able to do that, I don't think we're going to find out exactly how that falls apart until it's ruled upon in a court.
    - thayne 4y ago
      It isn't defined what it means for a version to be "authorized" though, which means it is ambiguous. And the FAQ for the original OGL makes it pretty clear that that intent was that once a version is authorized, it can't be un-authorized. As a layman, non-lawyer that seems like a pretty tough argument for WOTC.
sharpneli 4y ago
Does this mean that if I have released some MIT licensed, or contributed to a MIT licensed project, I can just call up a big company and tell them to pay me massive amounts of money now or stop using some product I have contributions in immediately? In reality obviously not. Whenever things like these happen it's interpreted in a way that the big company wins. For you not saying irrevocable doesn't mean it's revocable, but the opposite holds.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

robertlagrant 4y ago

> Aside from the confusing “perpetual” !== “irrevocable” language This on the face of it seems needlessly confusing as well. Perpetual seems to just mean "may be revoked at any time". So why use the term at all instead of just talking in terms of revocation? E.g. "irrevocable until 1 Jan 2025 except for situations listed in section 5" or "may be revoked at any time".

AppleBananaPie 4y ago
better marketing
hgsgm 4y ago
In law, "perpetual' means "indefinite", in contrast to its plain English meaning as "forever". It's nonsense like this that makes people hate the whole legal system and its players.