I said:
> >I don't mean this in any snotty way: Explaining legalese is what lawyers
> >are for. Get a lawyer. Have your lawyer explain it to you. Have your
> >lawyer review your goals and make sure your interests are protected.
Then David Bolack responded:
> That's not the point. The intent behind the legalese, from the mouths
> of those writing it is a necessary thing for engendering trust. Now,
> whether they say what the license says is something for an individual and
> their lawyer to "confirm", but that is very much a separate issue.
>
> The intent of the license is just as important as it's wording.
IANAL BIMO(but I married one).
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the intent is not as important as its
wording. Commercial contracts are often judged entirely on the written
word. If you want the intent to be important, you include a statement of
intent in your written word.
This *simplifies* the legal process. It's more difficult to prove intent
in court than it is to prove what a document says. Then the fight comes
down to what the words on the document actually mean.
Bottom line, if you want to make sure that your legal interests are
covered, hire a lawyer. Don't count on the other lawyers to explain
things in a way that you think you understand. Writing it in plain
English does not necessarily make it a better legal document. My gut
reaction is that a lot of plain English might make it more vague once it
gets to court, which really leaves it up to the judge. It's better to get
a strong legal document that really tells the judge exactly what is meant,
and then let your lawyer tell you whether or not to get on-board with the
license.
Creating and explaining legalese are the functions of lawyers. However,
their *role* is protecting the legal interests of their clients. If you
have legal interests, a stake to lose, and no lawyer, you're being
foolish.
Adam
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
