On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Ciro Alessandro Sacco wrote:
> It's of course possible. I know some general concepts, not the
> specifics, and I understand that US laws, which is (if I recall well)
> based on the English common law is different from Italian and 'neo
> Latin' laws that are rooted in the Roman law. I know that various Roman
> legal concepts have been imcportrated in the English system, but my law
> professors told me at the time (if I remember correctly) that the law
> findamentals are different.
The differences between a common law system (U.S., England) and civil code
systems (Italy, Germany, France) really aren't as large in operation as
they are often made out to be. There are significant fundamental
differences in philosophy concerning how law develops and where the legal
system sits in relation to the political system and society; however those
differences aren't felt all that much in the area of law under discusion -
business law.
> As I have written in a reply to Martin Shoemaker, I think some confusion
> has arisen from by bad choice of translation of terms that have
> different values in the law (I suppose pertaining criminal and civil
> laws).
Yes, that has largely been a problem. But even in your response to Martin
you used an example ("guilty of leaving trash") that is still criminal law
rather than civil law. But even in the U.S. people generally refer to
guilt when a person breaks a civil contract, it's pretty much legal people
who try to keep the two distinct. So I think your examples have been as
large a problem as the language. What you're looking for is the Italian
way of saying a person has breached/broken/violated a contract.
> Hmmm, I used the warranty/disclaimer example not as a useful 'precedent'
> which has so a large part in US laws (if I recall correctly) but only to
> 'strenghten' my example of different policies of corporations.
And I haven't taken the example as having anything to do with 'precedent'
either. It's just that the example has nothing to do with what you think
it does: corporations creating different policies for different
jurisdictions. In the case of warranties/disclaimers, corporations are
only including legal restrictions which have be placed on them by the
various governments. As an example it is so distinct from anything that
is covered by the OGL as to either be meaningless or distract from the
issue you want to discuss. There is nothing in the OGL which triggers
fundamental issues that government are concerned about such as
warranties/disclaimers.
> This is not a mattern of concern, it's a matter of personal curiosity.
Sorry, in English the two can be taken as synonomous. I probably should
have used the word 'interested' rather than concerned.
> Well, it's another useful response to my question. In my first message
> about the question, I wrote: "I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be very careful
> with "It is implied that such a copy must be in English" and about
> duties and privileges given you by US laws that, being not European or
> national ones, have no legal value whatsoerver (excluding Universal
> Copyright Conventions agreements of course)". I have written "I'd be"
> and "I'm not a lawyer" and to be "very careful" about using to the word
> English legal contracts that might be or might be not enforceable in
> other countries. That's all. I didin't think to spawn such a lively
> discussion (it wiull be useful when I write articles on the OGL, if
> ever).
It's not implied that the OGL must be in English, it's a specific
requirement. And I still don't understand your argument that having the
contract in English imposes duties & privileges of U.S. law. As I've
said, the contract imposes the terms of the contract on the agreeing
parties - those terms are not U.S. law are not U.S. law however. They are
simply the terms to which the parties have agree. If you could provide
just a single example of where you think U.S. is being enforced on anyone
perhaps it would be easier to answer your questions (if any still exist).
The only real area I can think of would be if two countries have different
understanding of copyright - but the Berne Convention has pretty much
taken are of that.
As for spawning a lively discussion, I think that occurred because in
answering your question, those of us with legal training decided to
explain why your question was flawed on it's premise (that the OGL was
applying U.S. law in Italy, which was likely not acceptable : both of
which are wrong to varying degree) rather than simply saying WotC had
considered the issue and realized it wasn't something that anyone needed
to be concerned about.
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
