Aaron Smalley wrote:
>> Since we have already determined on this list (I thought) that the OGL
>> applies to the WHOLE DOCUMENT, is there a legal grounds for doing this? I
>> thought that material in an OGL document could be either "open" or "PI".
>> Sounds like what you are proposing violates the OGL?
>
Faust;
That's in error. If you recally, there is a "third option."
What isn't PI or OGC, is *regular copyrighted stuff.* As long as it's
not something that *has* to be OGC, you're more or less set... unless
you accidently mark it as OGC. (Just a quick point.)
As for Clarik's sub-license--why not? He claims the names as PI, and
gives speicifc written permssion to use them with a few terms. It's not
an added license to the OGL, it covers something else.
> Does anyone else have an opinion or idea on this matter? Under what
> conditions can another license apply to a document containing content
> covered by the OGL. Can you have the document set up so that the OGL
> applies to "portions" and have another license apply to other portions
> of the document?
The OGL applies to the *entire* document.
The OGL prohibits use of extra licenses *that restrict the rights it
gives you!*
The OGL gives you no rights regarding non OGC... thus, you can do
whatever you want with those.
DM
