> Also, Dancey didn't issue the license, WotC did. Intent matters, so the WotC FAQ is relevant IMO, but Dancey's personal intent is irrelevant. Dancey-as-indiv

> Also, Dancey didn't issue the license, WotC did. Intent matters, so the WotC FAQ is relevant IMO, but Dancey's personal intent is irrelevant. Dancey-as-individual may not matter, but Dancey-as-officer-of-company may. At the time he was presumably acting on behalf of WotC and stating what WotC's intent was. So when he says that the intent at the time of issuance was that it could never be revoked, wouldn't there have to be evidence put forward to contradict it? Either internal documents or from someone else involved in the OGL giving a contrasting opinion?