> I couldn't disagree with you more that this are areas worth > exploring! :) Just because the discussion could be nearly > endless and probably start going in circles.
Of course, some of us are just twisted enough to enjoy such a discussion... > > * 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? > > Not sure if it's ever fully been tested, but if it has it'll > likely have been in the "open source" area since that's where > the concept has been at work the longest (at least in the > form known as 'copyleft'). So I'll leave it to Ryan Dancey > or someone else to provide specific examples. And I wouldn't > be surprised if there aren't any examples - as I'd bet even > the issues that came close to going to court ended up being settled. That's how I understood from earlier comments. And in fact, the comments implied that the judges in such cases STRONGLY encourage settlement, simply because none of the judges in question wanted to have to establish precedent in such a new area. > Theoretically, I expect that given it's current form > (individually created by contract terms) 'copyleft' is likely > to run into some different interpretations. Not just because > of being interpreted differently in varying jurisdictions, > but also because not all 'copyleft' contracts are the same. > But even given the same 'copyleft' contract, say the OGL, I'd > could see jurisdictions reaching disagreeing opinions on > issues. For the OGL, the most obvious one is probably "clear > designation" - perhaps where one court says a specific method > is clear while another says it isn't (assuming such an issue > would ever get before a court). An issue will then be > reconciling those differences in later cases. Ah, I never even thought about the "clear designation" issue. Since the industry itself can't agree on that (though I think some commonly accepted forms have emerged), I can only imagine how the courts could vary. > > * 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? > > I thought Ryan covered this (or something close to it) back > in the early days. I don't remember the details, but suffice > it to say that yes, this is perfectly acceptable. It's also > a large reason why the contrat is written the way it is - > since the earlier people in the chain have no contact > (perhaps even knowledge) of people later in the chain the > contract spells out things in the way that both parties have > actually agreed to be at both positions in the chain. When a > party uses the OGL they agree as to how they will re-use > other peoples OGC as well as agreeing to permit others re-use > of their OGC. I can tell that it's worded that way (pretty well, in my lay opinion). But my LIMITED experience with contracts has all been of the very formal sense, with signatures from both parties and lots of ruffles and fluorishes. This open license stuff is so abstract by comparison: not abstract in the terms (very concrete), but just in the way the whole thing happens. I guess in some ways, a manufacturer's warranty is equally abstract: the manufacturer warrants the product for certain uses; then a retailer sells the product to the consumer; and the consumer and the manufacturer are now parties to the warranty, even though they never met, and neither signed anything. So I should just adjust my brain to the idea that I can make an offer and you can accept, without a direct involvement. As always, thanks for the education! 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
