At 11:54 AM 4/10/2004 +0200, Peter Brink wrote:Someone making an offer with terms that are unlawful has to accept the risk that those terms are ignored by the other party. It's as simple as that. The rule is simple (in Sweden): one cannot trade a benefit against a restriction which is unlawful. The restriction is simply removed and the benefit remains. If I accept the offer I'm not doing so in bad faith - I'm accepting the deal as it stands according to the law.
That is stupid. You are saying that in Sweden I can end up in a contract where the other party gets a benefit and I get no benefit. That is a strange concept. Where is the quid pro quo of this arrangement? I would think the court would just terminate the license.
See clause 14 of the OGL, "Reformation" for how this is handled. If you want a license to apply to multiple jurisdictions, you need something like this to avoid one unenforceable clause blowing up the license.
And there are loads of contracts where you get no benefit. They're called Microsoft EULAs. :-)
Also, if your interpretation is correct than it is advantageous to be a user of the OGL. Where is the minefield?
In the variety of different legal systems in the EU. Like state law rather than federal law, only with at least two different fundamental bases. The OGL is based in *American* law. It will not fit every jurisdiction. (This is not a criticism of the OGL, which I regard as a masterpiece of completeness and comprehensibility).
- Rob.
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
