3 ms·

That's true, but it also adheres closely to ideas like "common sense". It's hard to imagine how to interpret the use of "perpetual" in the original OGL that do

by ajross 4y ago

That's true, but it also adheres closely to ideas like "common sense". It's hard to imagine how to interpret the use of "perpetual" in the original OGL that doesn't imply "irrevocable"; certainly nothing else in a blanket license like this is going to be time-limited. I dunno, but I'd want to see someone cite some case law where a "perpetual" license was allowed to be revoked like this. It certainly smells off to me. Obviously WotC isn't obligated to license any new content under an older OGL, it can use whatever terms it wants. But as for existing OGL content, I think they're on some very "innovative" ground here, legally.

tptacek 4y ago
From the reading I've done, I don't think there's much controversy about this: perpetual licenses aren't automatically irrevocable; they're separate concepts. A perpetual license is just a license without an expiration date. There are other reason I've read that 1.0 could be effectively irrevocable, but the word "perpetual" isn't, I don't think, one of them? https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/Technology_Licensing.pdf https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/Technolog... "Perpetual means a string of infinite length; irrevocable means a string, of any length, that cannot be cut."
- ajross 4y ago
  That still seems like an extremely narrow reading of a license that has been in regular use in an industry selling real products for 20 years. Literally everyone, including WotC, has gone on behaving as if this was "irrevocable". And only now it's not, because of a technical reading of the text of the license? That's not really the spirit of this kind of thing, and courts aren't computers. FWIW: I'll also note that the GPLv2 doesn't contain the word "irrevocable". Do we really believe that software authors of critical societal infrastructure should be empowered to do this kind of rug pull?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Karen Sandler and Heather Meeker on why GPL2 is irrevocable: https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-you-cant-take-open-source-code-back/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-you-cant-take-open-source-c...
    - ajross 4y ago
      Sure, but that's just an estoppel argument, which is exactly the kind of "common sense" thing I'm talking about. You don't get to walk around for two decades with one understanding of a license and then suddenly decide it means something different.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        I'm not here to say that 1.0a is defunct, only that there are big questions about whether it is. I've read a bunch of things that are optimistic about 1.0a. But: you said upthread that perpetual licenses were irrevocable, as "common sense". That is the opposite of the truth. Perpetual licenses are, by default, revocable.
        ajross 4y ago
        No? I said the common sense interpretation of the OGL was that it was irrevocable. I wasn't making a broad legal point about jargon or meaning, I was saying this particular interpretation was pretty clearly flying in the face of common sense interpretations of the license (of which "estoppel" is one bit of jargon to be applied), c.f. the Dancey quotes elsewhere in this thread. Clearly WotC itself believed this wasn't a temporary arrangement when they issued the license in 2000, just like the FSF clearly believed the GPLv2 to be a permanent license when they wrote it in 1991, and there is copious evidence on both sides to that effect. Thus an attempt by either party to revoke the license is subject to estoppel, and for the same reason. I guess I don't see why you think there's a distinction here.
        tptacek 4y ago
        You're trying to make a case with me about the 1.0a license. I don't care. If you asked me to bet on the outcome, I'd give it coinflip odds. There are IP lawyers you can read who would strongly bet for WOTC, and others who would strongly bet for the downstream users. Either way: I am here to say that "perpetual" licenses are not "irrevocable", as demonstrated above.

by ajross 4y ago

tptacek 4y ago

From the reading I've done, I don't think there's much controversy about this: perpetual licenses aren't automatically irrevocable; they're separate concepts. A perpetual license is just a license without an expiration date. There are other reason I've read that 1.0 could be effectively irrevocable, but the word "perpetual" isn't, I don't think, one of them? https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/Technology_Licensing.pdf https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/Technolog... "Perpetual means a string of infinite length; irrevocable means a string, of any length, that cannot be cut."

ajross 4y ago
That still seems like an extremely narrow reading of a license that has been in regular use in an industry selling real products for 20 years. Literally everyone, including WotC, has gone on behaving as if this was "irrevocable". And only now it's not, because of a technical reading of the text of the license? That's not really the spirit of this kind of thing, and courts aren't computers. FWIW: I'll also note that the GPLv2 doesn't contain the word "irrevocable". Do we really believe that software authors of critical societal infrastructure should be empowered to do this kind of rug pull?
- tptacek 4y ago
  Karen Sandler and Heather Meeker on why GPL2 is irrevocable: https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-you-cant-take-open-source-code-back/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-you-cant-take-open-source-c...
  - ajross 4y ago
    Sure, but that's just an estoppel argument, which is exactly the kind of "common sense" thing I'm talking about. You don't get to walk around for two decades with one understanding of a license and then suddenly decide it means something different.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      I'm not here to say that 1.0a is defunct, only that there are big questions about whether it is. I've read a bunch of things that are optimistic about 1.0a. But: you said upthread that perpetual licenses were irrevocable, as "common sense". That is the opposite of the truth. Perpetual licenses are, by default, revocable.
      - ajross 4y ago
        No? I said the common sense interpretation of the OGL was that it was irrevocable. I wasn't making a broad legal point about jargon or meaning, I was saying this particular interpretation was pretty clearly flying in the face of common sense interpretations of the license (of which "estoppel" is one bit of jargon to be applied), c.f. the Dancey quotes elsewhere in this thread. Clearly WotC itself believed this wasn't a temporary arrangement when they issued the license in 2000, just like the FSF clearly believed the GPLv2 to be a permanent license when they wrote it in 1991, and there is copious evidence on both sides to that effect. Thus an attempt by either party to revoke the license is subject to estoppel, and for the same reason. I guess I don't see why you think there's a distinction here.
        tptacek 4y ago
        You're trying to make a case with me about the 1.0a license. I don't care. If you asked me to bet on the outcome, I'd give it coinflip odds. There are IP lawyers you can read who would strongly bet for WOTC, and others who would strongly bet for the downstream users. Either way: I am here to say that "perpetual" licenses are not "irrevocable", as demonstrated above.