On Saturday, April 10, 2004 1:31 PM Joe Mucchiello wrote: <snip> > > 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.
Oh it's far from stupid, it's one of the tools the government has given to the weaker party (usually consumers), to enable them to protect themselves against dishonest traders and con-men or anyone else who would try and take advantage of another party's lack of knowledge of legal matters. If you write a contract and include an unlawful provision you forfeit your right to a quid pro quo deal. In fact, the main targets are standard contracts and adhesion contracts. These days unlawful provisions in standard contracts are almost unheard of, the authorities have used the law to get at companies who use them, thus "cleaning" the market. The moral is: follow the law, if you don't *you* will forfeit your benefits of the deal. > Also, if your interpretation is correct than it is advantageous to > be a user of the OGL. Where is the minefield? Well, we are only talking Swedish law here. We still don't know how the OGL works in the rest of EU and what happens if I issue a license in Sweden and that work is reused in the US and then in the UK and then in France. <Snip: my response to Lizard on the need to get permission to create and publish derivative works > > Huh? There is no difference between this and what you "can" do in > the US. You are always "allowed" to break the law. You also can > walk into a convenience store with a gun, point at the clerk and > say "give me all your money". Like releasing a derivative work, you > should not do this. I think Lizard and I are working under the > assumption that you will not do something that you know will get > you sued in a second. Thus from our point of view you CANNOT > release derivative works without permission of the original owner. I responded to your statement that one didn't have any moral right to create derivative works without permission, by stating that you had such a right and then added that you could publish a derivative work too, but you better ask for permission first. I reacted to the statement that one didn't have any moral right to *create* derivative works. Then you and Lizard objected. /Peter _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
