<<Well, there's "jurisdiction" and then there's "jurisdiction". I'm not
cogent of the way copyright licenses based on US copyright laws might be
adjudicated in say, Burma, but I'm pretty confident that nowhere in the
US (and probably Canada and the EU) would the OGL be considered
"terminable at will".
>>
I was referring to the _U.S._ jurisdictions I posted the case law quotes from. Those jurisdictions seem to disfavor any perpetual contracts (from a quick reading of the cases I found -- I didn't do a Westlaw search yet) with no specific duration stated. The cases said that in those jurisdictions, contracts with a duration of "perpetual" could be broken at will as if they were of indefinite duration.
I am just looking to see if anyone has case law citations for those jurisdictions handy to see if they do treat copyright licenses listing a perpetual duration to mean "for the duration of the copyright" as opposed to "perpetual".
I may need to track down a copy of Nimmer's book on copyrights or do a Westlaw search on this. I was just trying to find some case law to support a distinction between copyright licenses and other contracts in these U.S. jurisdictions that seem to give the thumbs down to perpetual contracts.
So many people use the term "perpetual" in multi-jurisdictional copyright licenses that I can't imagine that you'd be wrong, Ryan. But I also can't resolve it compared to what I read about those 2 jurisdictions I posted quotes from.
So, I'm not disagreeing with you -- I'm just trying to figure out _why_ you are right as opposed to claiming that you are wrong in some way.
Lee
