Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seebs" data-source="post: 8833185" data-attributes="member: 61529">I also spent a lot of time talking to Dancey about it, and he was very aggressive about asserting that they could absolutely sue anyone over things that are, so far as I could tell, completely okay under extremely well-settled law, and that the only way to be sure they wouldn't sue was to sign up for the OGL and accept its restrictions.If all the case law says that you're allowed to do a thing and do not need permission or a license to do it, and some angry guy on Usenet says a multi-million dollar corporation might sue you if you do it and cost you many thousands of dollars to find out whether the courts still feel that way, in order to induce you to accept the agreement even if you're doing things you absolutely do not need a license to do, that seems to me at least the tiniest bit suspicious.I'm not saying they weren't sincere in offering the license. I'm saying that they were pushing pretty hard to insist that people had to accept the license in order to do things which, so far as I could tell, absolutely did not require licensing or permission.</blockquote>