Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Altalazar" data-source="post: 2644121" data-attributes="member: 939">Actually, intent is often an element of criminal statutes and also of many civil violations.  But then, this isn't a criminal matter.  This is about compliance with a license that some might consider ambiguous about something that is rather minor - the inclusion of extra text describing more information about who owns the various pieces of the license and what isn't included.  In something like this, intent matters a lot.  Why do you think that extra text is included?  Looking at it impartially and reasonably, would you be 51% or more certain that this was a mistaken inclusion of extra text in a good faith effort to comply with the license requirement to include the full text of the license?  Given most people's unfamiliarity with legal mumbo-jumbo, and the possible ambiguity in just what text needed to be included given that, would you concede that including that text, if it wasn't required, could have been an honest mistake?  Or better yet, what possible motive would there be to include that extra text on a legal text page - what benefit would it be to the web page owner to have some extra fine print in the legal section like that?  Would any users of the site find it more useful or attractive because that text was in there?  So:1. The license is somewhat ambiguous about just what text needs to be included to comply with the license.  2. Even if one resolves that ambiguity against the web site owner, the only reasonable reason it is in there is because of a misconception and a sincere attempt to comply with the license.  Now, this is a contract claim we are talking about, so this is resolved in a court of equity.  Which means intent does matter a lot - if you go in with unclean hands, so to speak, it is a far different thing than having your hands clean.  And as someone else pointed out, Wizards is the 800 lb gorilla.  So it is true they can drag you through many courts even if they are totally wrong.  But then courts know this, and so when it comes to resolving ambiguities like 1) above, if there is an 800 lb gorilla who wrote the license with no negotiation or input from a 50 lb weakling, like a guy making a web page in his spare time, the court will 1) resolve the ambiguity in favor of the little guy because they know the general inequity - it is basically an adhesion contract.  Also, there is a general rule that ambiguous contract language is strictly construed AGAINST the drafter - because they were in control of the wording, it is their own fault if they didn't get it right.  So there are two independent legal doctrines that favor the web page owner over the corporation.  Then there is the issue of damages - which in this case, there are none, so really the only remedy the 800 lb gorilla could ask for is to terminate the license.  Except that again, the alleged 'breach' is so minor, it would likely be considered non-material and insufficient reason to terminate the agreement.  So just dealing with the issue of the legal page, I'm extremely confident there is no cause for concern.  Now that it has been pointed out as a possible problem, the owner can simply check to verify what exactly constitutes the license, and can update the page accordingly, if required.  Any actual lawyers here want to comment on that lay opinion?</blockquote>

Verification