Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8887193" data-attributes="member: 7039850">None of that kind of text is in their existing undisputed legal documents either, like the OGL 1.0a, or their fan content policy. The kind of writing you are looking for make sense if the party really want the contract to be indesputable. However in this case there appear to be strong suspicions that the lisence is actively written to be disputable in a way that it to a layman appear to have a much wider reach than what it would appear to someone familiar with case law.The removed links were most likely to the sections in the document. The leak is now confirmed from so many sources that at least one of them would have mentioned that, by the way the links mentioned lead to some text not included, unless you postulate a widespread conspiracy.Moreover, if this is actually the case, this would be an example of gross misrepresentation as it would either require the receiver to press the links or assess and recognize the purported legalese as obviously non legalise to understand that the provided text was indeed not the real legal language. I stand as exibit 1 that the text is convincing enough to a layman that even with its fakeness argued by a (presumed) legal expert, I still believe it to be the actual intended legal text.</blockquote>