[wolverine876]

> It's also not speculation that that was the intent of the original author, they're on record

Yes, a corporate executive is on record making a claim like that. Do you take it a face value?

This person is a sophisticated actor in a company that runs on IP. It doesn't matter what FOSS licenses said, and I don't have time to look into that. If Wizards wanted "irrevocable", it would say that. Did you see Wizards' attempt to redefine 'irrevocable' in the first revised draft? Same company.

[Macha]

> Yes, a corporate executive is on record making a claim like that. Do you take it a face value?

When there's twenty years of track record and a prior occasion (D&D 4e's GSL) where it would have been advantageous for them to try this, sure. You can't have a legal contract say an ambiguous statement then spend a literal decade promoting one interpretation then switch to another. This is why US laws about detrimental reliance or EU standards like promissory estoppel exist.

[wolverine876]

> You can't have a legal contract say an ambiguous statement then spend a literal decade promoting one interpretation then switch to another.

OGL 1.0a isn't ambiguous; I didn't read anything ambiguous and I didn't see anyone point to ambiguity in it.

Elsewhere, outside any license, they did promote another interpretation, but every IP attorney I read said that didn't matter.

[dragonwriter]

> Wizards wanted "irrevocable", it would say that

It does, that's why when, when they wanted to revoke it without also. casting doubt on their next “irrevocable” license, they relied on the “any authorized version” language, and moved to deauthorize the original version.

[wolverine876]

>> Wizards wanted "irrevocable", it would say that

> It does

I'm almost certain that it does not. I've read the license, and many attorneys have commented on the word's absence. Can you quote where the license sasys that?