[License-discuss] License compatibility - reg

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Matthew Flaschen (matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu):

> Possibly, if the court decides the license is ambiguous.  They might
> look to the preamble, as well as the licensor's statements (as you said,
> the licensor is often not the license drafter).
> 
> But I think it's reasonable to think they may consider the license
> drafter's statements as well.

You may think that's reasonable, but in my years of study of business
law[1], I cannot recall any case where the drafter of a boilerplate
legal vehicle was consulted by any judge, in a situation where the intent
of a party to some legal action is at issue, and the drafter was not a
party.  Business contracts would be a prime example.  The judge looks to
the text.  If the text is somehow murky, he/she looks to other guidance
apparent in what the parties have written, said, and done elsewhere.

(There are exceptional situations such as cases covered by the Statute
of Frauds.  If you want to endure a really boring one-hour lecture, ask
a legal expert to explain that for you.  If that's not enough masochism
for one day, follow up with a request for something about the Rule
against Perpetuities.)


> If you're not certain how the license will be interpreted in court, I
> think it's conservative (safer) not to do things the license drafter
> interprets as forbidden.

Same logic error in my view, sorry.  The drafter is not a party to the 
issue in any way.

But I'm glad to agree to disagree, pending the arrival of relevant
caselaw that I firmly predict will occur exactly never because nobody is
going to litigate based on such a, ahem, speculative theory of law.  (My
view, etc.)

[1] No, I'm certainly not a lawyer.  I studied for and passed the
Certified Public Accountant exam, for which one must study and master a
fair amount of business law.  I'm not claiing expertise; just a more
seasoned than average amateur and one who tends to avoid many of the
more common errors.