This brings up a point that i don't think has been addressed here--anybody with a law degree still around?
I have no idea. I suspect that they are--but just, y'know, putting that law degree to good use somewhere that gets them moolah.
(For the lurkers, IANAL--just a guy who took some undergraduate law classes.)
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?
I was taught in class that the courts favor the letter of the contract to the extent that the contract is unambiguous, and when it is ambiguous, they interpret it against the drafter of said contract.
This is, as I hear, a good sized bulk of the law, btw. Oodles of case law, written law, public policy, et cetera determine exactly what words mean what things--if strict adherence to a contract is necessary, it's probably best to engage in discussion with both parties as to what the terms shall be, and allowing for ample review time before the contract is signed.
IMO, when dealing with the OGL it is always best to act as if the letter AND the spirit of the OGL are all that matters--and that the FAQs and HOWTOs and whatnot are all well and good and gospel truth. If you want to go against the spirit, it's your own neck on the line and I want no part of it--and if you've messed up, the best thing to do is to take the first tolerable offer that your offendee gives you.
DM
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
