<<And i have no idea what happens in a court of law if there's a contract
dispute and the author says "i intended the license to mean X" and a
witness says "i knew the license was supposed to mean X, so used it that
way" and the defendant says "i don't know what he intended, the license
clearly means Y, and that's what i did".
>>
Supreme Court precedent on the matter says that for contracts, and particularly for contracts of adhesion (contracts which are drafted by one party and presented on a "take it or leave it" basis without negotation), which this is, any vague area of the contract should be construed against the drafter if there is a disagreement between the drafter and another party.
Where there is no vague area, I doubt that many courts are going to listen to the drafter's claims of intent if another party to a contract of adhesion is adhering to the contract per the plain English meaning of the contract.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
