On 9/28/00 7:15 AM, Clark Peterson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
>Nonenforcement alone does not create a license. So any
>argument that it does is flat wrong. However, the
>language of the online policy seems to give permission
>and be more than a statement of non-enforcment.
>Nevertheless, unless the license is by its terms
>irrevocable (which it is not) or is coupled with an
>interest (which here it is not) even if the policy
>could be construed as a license, it is freely
>revocable by WotC at any time, subject only to
>possible reliance argments--which I do not see
>existing since there is no real detrimental reliance
>based on the purported license.
>
>Bottom line: WotC can change the policy at any time
>and there isnt a damn thing you can do about it.
Actually, licenses generally have to specify the terms they are revocable
under, not the other way around. That's why every software license and
contract you'll find has that spelled out in it.
It could obviously be revoked for NEW users of their IP, it's
questionable whether it could be for CURRENT users.
--
Russ Taylor (http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/)
CMC Tech Support Manager
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the
top number and make that a little louder?
[Pause]
Nigel Tufnel: These go to eleven.
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
