<<Or, that the license is mis-constructed. I
don't see why, in a discussion of the validity of elements of the license, we have to discount the possibility that those elements are simlpy not valid.>>
Or that the requirement for ownership is either not valid or not fully explained...
Either could be in error.
If the intent is to protect things that aren't protectable via trademark and copyright law, then reading "owner" as one would read it in trademark or copyright law might be erroneous, for clearly neither would be 100% applicable. The term "owner" might need clarification.
If the intent is to only protect things that are protectable via trademark and copyright law, then some of the things listed as PI seem like they don't belong and they are potentially misleading.
If there are two opposed parts of the contract and both are in conflict, then there is no reason, in my opinion, to choose one over the other on any other basis other than intent of the contract, triggering reformation if necessary.
<<After all, Alec already pointed out a very reasonable reading (it's got me persuaded) that the bit that says PI "specifically excludes" OGC is nonsensical, as PI only has meaning when it is also OGC.>>
I think I've heard this argument before, I believe, but I think there are two readings.
1) Islands are in the ocean. Oceans surround the islands. Islands are not oceans. Oceans are not islands. PI may float around inside of OGC, but it is _not_ OGC. OGC may wholly surround PI on all sides, but it is OGC, it is _not_ PI.
versus
2) "My shopping list each week includes fruit, but specifically excludes strawberries." In this construction, part of the possible PI is something that would be considered OGC, but is earmarked for exclusion.
<< Could
there not be other errors in the license?
>>
Probably a number of them, all needing clarification. I really wish we could talk WotC into releasing version 2.0 of the license with clarifications so that anyone who wanted to switch over to the new version could. Changes in the new version would not be binding on anyone using 1.0a, but those of us who chose to use 2.0 might benefit from the added security of greater clarity in the license we are using.
I think that would be a lot more useful than debating parts of the license that probably need:
a) clarification
OR
b) outright reformation
