3 ms·

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 w

by 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.
    - ajross 4y ago
      I'll take that bet. No way, zero chance, does WotC manage to get an injunction (much less a decision) preventing Green Ronin or Goodman or anyone else from publishing their existing 5e-compatible content. It won't happen, period. No way is a court going to go there, for precisely the reason that it opens up the entire open source economy to ransom by cranky copyright holders. Frankly I think you're being silly here, and hiding behind a technical argument with which I never engaged. I agree, FWIW, with your definitional argument. I just don't think it's particularly relevant for exactly the reasons in the GPL link you gave.
sobkas 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. Why? If you convince judge, world is your oyster.

by ajross 4y ago

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.
  - ajross 4y ago
    I'll take that bet. No way, zero chance, does WotC manage to get an injunction (much less a decision) preventing Green Ronin or Goodman or anyone else from publishing their existing 5e-compatible content. It won't happen, period. No way is a court going to go there, for precisely the reason that it opens up the entire open source economy to ransom by cranky copyright holders. Frankly I think you're being silly here, and hiding behind a technical argument with which I never engaged. I agree, FWIW, with your definitional argument. I just don't think it's particularly relevant for exactly the reasons in the GPL link you gave.

sobkas 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. Why? If you convince judge, world is your oyster.