Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tomBitonti" data-source="post: 8912944" data-attributes="member: 13107">It just seems an oddly ambiguous thing to put in a contract.&nbsp; Absent a specific action, knowing intent is mind reading.&nbsp; This is important in writing and in implementing software, which is my background, as computers cannot read the user's mind to know their intent.&nbsp; A computer must rely on a specific action to indicate intent.&nbsp; Likewise, I presume that legally, intent is generally inferred from specific actions.&nbsp; I expect that a well written contract would rely on clear and explicit actions to convey intent, and that there are clear guidelines of how to infer intent in contract law.I agree that in practice, one who wishes to use the license will take the steps of attaching the license, &amp;etc, and that those actions convey clear intent.Yeah.Except, even the awarding of licenses for use of specific parts of OGC requires contributor authority.&nbsp; Except in scale, how is having all OGC contributors grant a license to the entire OGC different?&nbsp; It seems that by accepting the license, each contributor agrees to enable the grant of new licenses of individually contributed OGC.Even if the licenses are to individual parts, doesn't WotC also issue a new license, as one of the OGC contributors?Then, I still get tangled up here in that the section grants a new license.&nbsp; As a different license (with the same terms), is this duplicate license from WotC an authorized license?&nbsp; It seems &quot;authorized&quot; is an external attribute of the license.&nbsp; That is, &quot;authorized&quot; as a property is a label externally attached to the license.&nbsp; Then, that label is not a term of the license and is not a property of the duplicate licenses.TomB</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tomBitonti, post: 8912944, member: 13107"] It just seems an oddly ambiguous thing to put in a contract. Absent a specific action, knowing intent is mind reading. This is important in writing and in implementing software, which is my background, as computers cannot read the user's mind to know their intent. A computer must rely on a specific action to indicate intent. Likewise, I presume that legally, intent is generally inferred from specific actions. I expect that a well written contract would rely on clear and explicit actions to convey intent, and that there are clear guidelines of how to infer intent in contract law. I agree that in practice, one who wishes to use the license will take the steps of attaching the license, &etc, and that those actions convey clear intent. Yeah. Except, even the awarding of licenses for use of specific parts of OGC requires contributor authority. Except in scale, how is having all OGC contributors grant a license to the entire OGC different? It seems that by accepting the license, each contributor agrees to enable the grant of new licenses of individually contributed OGC. Even if the licenses are to individual parts, doesn't WotC [i]also[/i] issue a new license, as one of the OGC contributors? Then, I still get tangled up here in that the section grants a [i]new[/i] license. As a different license (with the same terms), is this duplicate license from WotC an authorized license? It seems "authorized" is an external attribute of the license. That is, "authorized" as a property is a label externally attached to the license. Then, that label is not a term of the license and is not a property of the duplicate licenses. TomB [/QUOTE]

Verification