3 ms·

OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you’ll no longer be able to use the content under those terms.

by dahdum 4y ago

ezfe 4y ago
They can't just revoke a license (OGL 1.0) unless that license says it can be revoked. Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. Think of the implications it would have if anyone could revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for violating the replacement license.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Bjartr 4y ago
  > Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. They can act as if they can and sue those that try to ignore it. Then focus on drawing out the legal battle it would take to actually settle the question of if they can. Leveraging the threat of expensive litigation to try to avoid any legally binding outcome enforcing that they can't actually do that.
- dahdum 4y ago
  The license wasn’t irrevocable. It was perpetual, but those mean quite different things according to the IP lawyers I’ve seen commenting on this.
  - Macha 4y ago
    So what some but not all have indicated is that if there is consideration, it goes from a license to a license contract which negates the default revocability of a regular license. The OGL v1.0a and precedents around some open source licenses (Jacobsen vs Katzer, for the Artistic License) indicate that licensing your own work under the same terms counts as consideration. Others have indicated there may be a detrimental reliance (US) or promissory estoppel (EU) case against Wizards to change the license at this point given they have made public statements on the record about the non-revocability of the OGL v1.0a and have allowed the current OGL ecosystem to exist under that assumption for 23 years. The third situation is that neither of the above matter, which is a problem for the software industry as plenty of open source licenses (GPLv2, BSD, MIT, Apache 1.1) have the exact same omission of "irrevocable".

OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you’ll no longer be able to use the content under those terms.

by dahdum 4y ago

OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you’ll no longer be able to use the content under those terms.

ezfe 4y ago

They can't just revoke a license (OGL 1.0) unless that license says it can be revoked. Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. Think of the implications it would have if anyone could revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for violating the replacement license.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Bjartr 4y ago
> Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. They can act as if they can and sue those that try to ignore it. Then focus on drawing out the legal battle it would take to actually settle the question of if they can. Leveraging the threat of expensive litigation to try to avoid any legally binding outcome enforcing that they can't actually do that.
dahdum 4y ago
The license wasn’t irrevocable. It was perpetual, but those mean quite different things according to the IP lawyers I’ve seen commenting on this.
- Macha 4y ago
  So what some but not all have indicated is that if there is consideration, it goes from a license to a license contract which negates the default revocability of a regular license. The OGL v1.0a and precedents around some open source licenses (Jacobsen vs Katzer, for the Artistic License) indicate that licensing your own work under the same terms counts as consideration. Others have indicated there may be a detrimental reliance (US) or promissory estoppel (EU) case against Wizards to change the license at this point given they have made public statements on the record about the non-revocability of the OGL v1.0a and have allowed the current OGL ecosystem to exist under that assumption for 23 years. The third situation is that neither of the above matter, which is a problem for the software industry as plenty of open source licenses (GPLv2, BSD, MIT, Apache 1.1) have the exact same omission of "irrevocable".