Don't take any of this as an attack. Some of the accusatory questions herein are real concerns. I'm sure you have thought most of my questions below through and have reasonable arguments for them. I'd just like to hear what those arguments are. Basically all I am asking below is, are you heading out of the safe harbor here and, by doing so, are you taking others with you onto the high seas?
At 02:00 AM 4/14/2002 -0700, Clark Peterson wrote: >Incorporating material from other sources is a time >honored priciple. Granted, I am stretching it a bit >since the work "exact" has a very common meaning. But does "exact" have a legal meaning in contract law? >But that section is unclear. They cant really mean >"exact". Here is why. > >I make a product. That product uses the OGL and the >SRD. >[snip]] > >So do I have to list the OGL TWICE?!? So you've never seen anything included on a product, for legal reasons, that didn't look stupid, or inane, or make you go WTF before? Legal requirements in your experience are always level-headed, reasonable, and strict interpretation never occurs? You're a lawyer asking these questions? Contract contain so much boiler-plate text because that text won a lawsuit for someone. Because the lawyer using the boiler-plate text do not want to risk changing it so that it is readable (and thereby risk a different judgement for their client), we are stuck with the disaster known as legalese in any contracts we enter into. >So I propose that exactly doenst mean "exactly" > >Does that give me some wiggle room? Again, you are making an interpretation. That is fine when it is just your butt on the line. But you are saying, "go ahead and do this my way, I don't think we'll be sued." Is wiggle room a sound legal theory? Doesn't a contributor of OGC have an obligation to subsequent users that such OGC will not have any legal stickiness attached to it? At 10:28 AM 4/14/2002 -0500, John Nephew wrote: >on 4/14/02 3:27 AM, Clark Peterson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I really want to find a way to do this, which is why I > > submitted it here to the list. > >You and me both! We could certainly benefit from using it in our upcoming >monster book. Will your "how to use this OGC" text be open content itself? Should you open your legal advice which isn't legal advice? Joe _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
