Alec A. Burkhardt wrote:
>Except knowledge of the OGL provides you with absolutely no insight of
>value in answering Maggie's question. The fact that anyone thinks
>understanding the OGL would qualify them to even attempt to answer
>Maggie's question is exactly why I'm concerned about her asking the
>question on this list.
>
I know. That's why I suggest she ask him a more general question.
I can speak on ethics, and I can suggest things to ask, but it's foolish
to think I know her situation better than she does.
>And while most people on this list are more familiar with the OGL than a
>lawyer pulled out of the blue, that's only because such lawyers haven't
>seen or examined the OGL. Give any competent lawyer a copy of the OGL and
>I'll bet their understanding of it is as good as this list. It's really a
>very uncomplicated legal document. So if someone has PAID a lawyer for
>their advice on an issue, I highly doubt this list is going to give better
>advice. And that's been proven true in this example, as Maggie's attorney
>was completely correct and many on this list have been questioning his
>advice.
>
I haven't seen someone question the lawyer's advice, just the
reasonableness of the specific act that Maggie needs to do to comply
with BWA's laws.
I *have* seen many professional companies who AFAIK have spoken with
lawyers completely botch the OGL and/or the D20STL. It's possible that
the lawyer looked at the "time to cure a breach" clause, and told these
companies "do it as best you can, and call me when you get a legal
nastygram."
Beside the point, isn't have the point of a copyleft to free people from
licencing hurdles?
DM
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
