2 ms·
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.
by 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 agoSo 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".