Thanks to all of the people who responded to my original post:
I have been pursuing the issue and you might be interested in the developments since that point in time.
Sorry for creating a new discussion. I needed to attach 2 documents but I could not see how to attach PDFs using the Reply interface on my previous post.
Question to be answered:
"Is it OK for a legal office to create an Agreement form demanding specific behaviour yet refuse to clarify if a suggested (specific) example is in breach of the agreement?"
The story so far:
Please read the previous post https://fmdev.filemaker.com/thread/68833
22 January 2013: I wrote a document (attached) requesting the Legal Office advise if 4 specific examples of re-using components of a database would be considered "in breach" of the agreement. As you read the document please be aware that "I am Australian" and Australians are known for exhibiting behaviour that is upfront, straightforward and "cuts to the chase". Furthermore, I would place myself at the far right of this behavourial continuum.
12 February 2013: The legal office replied to my liaison, who sent me the relevant responses in an email message. Not sure if the reply was edited to any great extent.
I guess the response from Legal is to be expected. Still I am disappointed they would not comment on the specific examples I provided. Common sense suggests the people who write the agreement should be able to adjudicate and say "Yes" or "No" if a specific example breaches the agreement, or not. Probably every rule, policy and law, ever invented, has evolved out of a real world event that needs to be addressed. This very agreement was probably written by Legal in response to historical infractions against UQ. Personally, I find it bizarre that people can make a rule, demand you follow said rule yet refuse to help clarify the rule, particularly any "fuzzy" areas. Conversely, if I wrote an agreement, I would consider myself to be the best person interpret it, over-and-above the interpretation of outsiders.
So now I am off to investigate something called the GITC.
From there I will decide if I should sign the agreement or not.
Bye for now.