Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bmcdaniel" data-source="post: 8891055" data-attributes="member: 1772">It seems like an unduly harsh standard to fault Kit Walsh for not fully exploring all relevant issues; admitting the original analysis was incorrect and posting a correction is pretty darn good.The part I would quibble with is the opening line: &quot;As the community has scrutinized Wizards of the Coast's past statements, it's become very clear that Wizards always thought of this as a contract with obligations for both sides (for instance their 2001 OGL FAQ v 1.0)&quot; which implies that OGL 1.0(a) is a contract only because of extrinsic evidence that Kit did not have access to in her original post. As repeated ad nauseum, extrinsic evidence such as the FAQ is relevant only if text of an agreement is ambiguous. And the OGL 1.0(a) is not ambiguous at all about whether it is an agreement: &quot;In consideration for agreeing to use this License&quot;; &quot;Offer and Acceptance&quot;; &quot;Grant and Consideration&quot; are all words evidencing an intent to form an agreement in the OGL 1.0(a), and all were available to Kit before her original post. I think Kit just engaged in a little bit of CYA, which in my book is a venial sin.-------------In matters of law, there are complexities, nuance and exceptions to everything, including things said above. Don't expect a complete discussion in a forum post. Moreover, even if there are no complexities, nuance and exceptions that apply to your situation, there may be consequences that apply to you that you should consider. The fact that I don't know what complexities, nuance, exceptions and consequences apply to your specific situation is one reason (among many) that the things said above are not legal advice. So, I'll say what you hear so many lawyers say. The above is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You can rely on my legal advice only when we have discussed your specific situation after entering into an engagement letter with me or my law firm, and have agreed to pay me or my law firm for the provision of legal advice.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bmcdaniel, post: 8891055, member: 1772"] It seems like an unduly harsh standard to fault Kit Walsh for not fully exploring all relevant issues; admitting the original analysis was incorrect and posting a correction is pretty darn good. The part I would quibble with is the opening line: "As the community has scrutinized Wizards of the Coast's past statements, it's become very clear that Wizards always thought of this as a contract with obligations for both sides (for instance their 2001 OGL FAQ v 1.0)" which implies that OGL 1.0(a) is a contract only because of extrinsic evidence that Kit did not have access to in her original post. As repeated ad nauseum, extrinsic evidence such as the FAQ is relevant only if text of an agreement is ambiguous. And the OGL 1.0(a) is not ambiguous at all about whether it is an agreement: "[U]In consideration for agreeing to use this License[/U]"; "[U]Offer and Acceptance[/U]"; "[U]Grant and Consideration[/U]" are all words evidencing an intent to form an agreement in the OGL 1.0(a), and all were available to Kit before her original post. I think Kit just engaged in a little bit of CYA, which in my book is a venial sin. ------------- In matters of law, there are complexities, nuance and exceptions to everything, including things said above. Don't expect a complete discussion in a forum post. Moreover, even if there are no complexities, nuance and exceptions that apply to your situation, there may be consequences that apply to you that you should consider. The fact that I don't know what complexities, nuance, exceptions and consequences apply to your specific situation is one reason (among many) that the things said above are not legal advice. So, I'll say what you hear so many lawyers say. The above is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You can rely on my legal advice only when we have discussed your specific situation after entering into an engagement letter with me or my law firm, and have agreed to pay me or my law firm for the provision of legal advice. [/QUOTE]

Verification