On Saturday 02 August 2003 04:47 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Readability is not a requirement. Clear indication is.
You can argue this day in and day out and it won't make a bit of difference. Wizards has made the _intent_ of what they mean clear, so if you're dealing
with their OGC (probably >99% of all OGC in the world) then you need to
accept that that's how they're going to see it.
This brings up a point that i don't think has been addressed here--anybody with a law degree still around?
If it comes to a court battle, do courts generally side with the letter of a contract, or the spirit? That is:
A writes a contract, intending it to mean X
However, a strict legal reading of the contract leads to it meaning Y
B comes along, and, in good faith, follows the letter of the contract, thus abiding by terms X
A says "no, it's supposed to mean Y" and takes it to court.
Who does the court side with? Does it change if B is perfectly aware that the "intended" meaning is Y, but chooses to abide by the actual meaning X?
In short, do the FAQs with the WotC OGL and D20STL have any legally-binding weight? It seems to me that anything that the FAQs answer that the license itself does not (as opposed to those issues where the FAQ just restates or simplifies) has no legal weight--if they want it to have legal weight, they should change the license to actually say that. Otherwise, what's the point of a contract, if a non-attached/-incorporated addendum can change its meaning? But i've no legal knowledge even vaguely related to this.
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
The avalanche has already begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. -- Kosh _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
