<<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.
While I view your question as being separate from my proposal, I'll point out regarding my own proposal that the unincorporated addendum I proposed doesn't add new terms or conditions to the license, but would be an agreement clarifying which of a multitude of readings individuals who accept the addendum are willing to declare as their preferred reading of the contract. It should be a perfectly valid approach provided that such an addendum is accepted voluntarily by parties rather than being issued unilaterally.
The FAQs have weight insofar as they show the intent of one party, but they only have weight insofar as that is one potential reading, and in some cases, WotC opinions seems inconsistent with the plain language of the license. Where WotC opinions represent an opinion inconsistent with the plain language of the license, they would be non-binding in all likelihood unless all other parties involved had a comparable reading.
But I've never heard of a case where a court upheld a reading of a contract that was both inconsistent with the face of the contract AND was not shared by both parties except in instances of contract reformation where the contract, as written, was unenforceable.
The STL, as applied, is very inconsistent. Take this example. WotC has a policy that any product with the d20 logo may mention _NO_ other WotC products than the PHB, DMG, MM, d20 Modern, and psi handbook (I think). However, products with the d20 logo frequently carry reviews of WotC products. This is a clear violation of the letter of the STL.
However, here's the catch. I asked if the d20 STL could be applied at the level of the review (a single work) within a compiled work (a magazine). A WotC rep said it could be. However this then opens the door bizarrely enough to having a book that is only OGL licensed with a d20 licensed CD-ROM in the back cover. The booklet could be a non-d20 STL compliant booklet and the CD-ROM could be a d20 STL compliant item. This WotC didn't want to allow.
The point being, is that their lawyers really didn't thoroughly consider the multitude of applications of the STL and the OGL when they drafted them. They kinda viewed the licenses only insofar as they would apply to a single module or book. They did NOT consider software and compiled/collected works (magazines, edited volumes of articles, etc.), and so their legal opinions should be taken with an entire spoonful of salt with regards to these items, as their opinions seem most inconsistent.
These are some of the reasons that I want to see a more thoughtful redraft of the STL and the OGL.
Lee
