[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/27/02 3:52:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:That would be an unusual interpretation of "perpetual" and may be specific to the facts of those cases.
<<Well, there's "jurisdiction" and then there's "jurisdiction". I'm not
cogent of the way copyright licenses based on US copyright laws might be
adjudicated in say, Burma, but I'm pretty confident that nowhere in the
US (and probably Canada and the EU) would the OGL be considered
"terminable at will".
>>I was referring to the _U.S._ jurisdictions I posted the case law quotes from. Those jurisdictions seem to disfavor any perpetual contracts (from a quick reading of the cases I found -- I didn't do a Westlaw search yet) with no specific duration stated. The cases said that in those jurisdictions, contracts with a duration of "perpetual" could be broken at will as if they were of indefinite duration.
Indiana law is going to uphold Ryan's interpretation, unless the terms of the contract clearly indicate that the parties did not intend for the word to be used with its normal meaning. There is nothing in the OGL to indicate that "perpetual", as used in the OGL, should be read differently from Ryan's interpretation.
--
Sean Mead
MEAD, MEAD & CLARK, P.C.
108 E. Market St.
P. O. Box 468
Salem, IN 47167
(812) 883-4693
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
