Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 4330510" data-attributes="member: 13107">[I may be WAY off in the reasoning below; I'm working from my laymans understanding of contracts.&nbsp; Anyone out there that can say whether my reasoning makes any sense?]I am reading that text and just not believing it.&nbsp; Or rather, I am wondering how there is any agreement at all, and, as a result, how there is a contract at all.Am I wrong in considering the license a contract?I'm thinking of the license as a contract because it stipulates an exchange of value: The licensee is allowed to do some things but must also not to do certain things.&nbsp; The licensee gains a value (to be able to use the licensed property in certain ways), but also loses a value (the ability to use their content in the OGL; the ability to make certain products that are allowed by fair use).&nbsp; The loss in value to the licensee must be seen as a gain in value to WoTC, for otherwise, what is the point of those specific sections of the license?&nbsp; That seems to make the GPL a contract.What bends my mind is that, as a contract, the terms are not fixed.&nbsp; WoTC, as the licenser, can, at their whim, remove all of the value provided to the licensee while maintaining all of the value to the licensee.My understanding is that a contract must have an actual exchange of value.&nbsp; So ... because the license may be updated to create terms which create an invalid contract, the terms that allow the update must either be invalid, or must not be as broad as they seem to read, or the license as a whole must be invalid.[Side note: If there is an exchange of value, doesn't that have to be assigned a dollar value, and possibly be taxable?]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 4330510, member: 13107"] [I may be WAY off in the reasoning below; I'm working from my laymans understanding of contracts. Anyone out there that can say whether my reasoning makes any sense?] I am reading that text and just not believing it. Or rather, I am wondering how there is any agreement at all, and, as a result, how there is a contract at all. Am I wrong in considering the license a contract? I'm thinking of the license as a contract because it stipulates an exchange of value: The licensee is allowed to do some things but must also not to do certain things. The licensee gains a value (to be able to use the licensed property in certain ways), but also loses a value (the ability to use their content in the OGL; the ability to make certain products that are allowed by fair use). The loss in value to the licensee must be seen as a gain in value to WoTC, for otherwise, what is the point of those specific sections of the license? That seems to make the GPL a contract. What bends my mind is that, as a contract, the terms are not fixed. WoTC, as the licenser, can, at their whim, remove all of the value provided to the licensee while maintaining all of the value to the licensee. My understanding is that a contract must have an actual exchange of value. So ... because the license may be updated to create terms which create an invalid contract, the terms that allow the update must either be invalid, or must not be as broad as they seem to read, or the license as a whole must be invalid. [Side note: If there is an exchange of value, doesn't that have to be assigned a dollar value, and possibly be taxable?] [/QUOTE]

Verification