"But does "exact" have a legal meaning in contract law?"
No. But generally words are given their "plain meaning" "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?" You are right. It happens all the time. All I am saying is that perhaps giving the word "exact" its plain meaning isnt required since it would lead to an absurd result and there is a general presumption that absurd results are not intended. "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." Thats not what I am saying at all. I am saying "do it this way and I wont allege you have cited the OGC improperly. See the disclaimer I provide below in the text. "Doesn't a contributor of OGC have an obligation to subsequent users that such OGC will not have any legal stickiness attached to it?" No. Thats a problem of using OGC from a source other than the SRD. You have to make sure they did it right. Does a contributor have an obligation to do it as well as possible? Yes. No one can guarantee they are doing it right since WotC wont preapprove and there are no decisions in the area. So there isnt ANYONE who can contribute OGC and guarantee it wont have ANY "legal stickiness" as you say. "Should you open your legal advice which isn't legal advice?" You need to pay attention to the disclaimer. This is not legal advice. It is a set of instructions followed by a promise from us that we wont allege you have mis-used the OGC. The disclaimer CLEARLY STATES this is not legal advice. Clark ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax http://taxes.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
