The OGL is binding. But it only binds products that use the OGL and its Open Gaming Content.
It's fascinating watching you in multiple threads arguing with an actual lawyer about the law. I admire your self-confidence, but question your judgement.
If this OGL thing has taught me anything, then that you cannot get lawyers to agree on anything, and that one lawyer given one contract can come up with four different ways to interpret it. So some (lawyers and interpretations) are bound to be wrong, that is just unavoidable.
I suppose. But my point is arguing in an area where you have zero expertise. It's a game where you cannot win. My area of expertise, work-wise, is software engineering: software architecture, software design, that sort of thing. If a non-expert talks to me about this, or tries to contradict me, I entertain them, but it's generally silliness. The points they think they are making, the arguments they are bringing up... they aren't likely even relevant, or meaningful. In conversation, out of politeness, I try to bridge the gap by filling in the bits they are missing or not understanding, but it's tough. Sometimes, there is a legitimate point being made by the layman, for sure. Experts haven't always considered all the things. So I pay attention. But the likelihood that a non-expert has thought of a solution to a problem that the experts in that field have not is beyond vanishingly small. They just don't understand enough about the basics for that to even be realistic.
To be fair, I have expertise in ancient legal texts. These are terse, cryptic, and convoluted. In comparison, the OGL is straightforward and intended for ordinary gamers to understand and comply with.
That sounds pretty cool. A hobby?
Different perspectives are great! But arguing about the nuanced points of a complex field with an expert in that field when you yourself have no expertise in that field... that's the bit that I find unproductive.
I repeat: what theory or method of contractual interpretation are you applying? You haven't said. You haven't explained why you think section 7 does not operate with its plain meaning.
Which interpretation?Now whether @pemerton is here, I have no idea, but his interpretation is surprising to me in that I never would have thought of it this way, not that it cannot be read that way
What disagreement have you seen? As @Steel_Wind posted a week or two ago, there has been overwhelming agreement among the legal experts posting about this matter.
You are not actually setting out any readings of the text. For instance, what are you reading in section 7 that confines its operation in the way that you assert?
Hmm... I can't see the quote that's being responded to here. That means the respondee has ignored me I presume?
