> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Alec A. Burkhardt > Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2002 11:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Non-English material > > The OGL has very few specific details in it to begin with, > and none that I can see any jurisdiction having written > specific laws concerning/prohibiting. If you think there is > some area of the OGL that might pose a problem, please feel > free to point it out.
Knowing zilch about other legal codes (nearly zilch about ours), I can think of two areas worth exploring: * As I understand (from these lists, for the most part) the whole "copyleft" and open licensing concept has yet to actually be tested in any court. Is that understanding accurate? And if it ever does get tested, what's the likelihood that it will get interpreted in entirely contradictory fashions in different jurisdictions? * I'm very unclear on a related issue of contract law: the way the whole license is kind of "remote". The parties to the contract never sit down and formally agree to anything. Rather, one makes an open invitation to contract, and the other just acts in accordance with the invitation; and voila! We have a contract. No one sat down and agreed, no one signed anything, and one party to the agreement may never even be aware that the other party has agreed to anything. This seems just a little nebulous to me, even though it's a core mechanism for open licensing. Are there precedents that support such open-ended contracts? And what's the likelihood that such open-ended contracts are considered equally binding in different jurisdictions? Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
