I did see what Clark said then and, as I didn't *GET* the reasoning for other people still
doing the same thing a long time after the R&R, I asked again. However, I'm not going to
push the question any more as it just sounds like I'm bashing Clark if I do that (and I
certainly didn't intend that).
Just because Clark has said he wouldn't do what he did in R&R now doesn't mean that others don't look at R&R now and use it as an example of how to do PI now. Is this a plausible explanation for others doing PI declaration in the same style as R&R?
A lot of PI and OGC declarations out there are copycat'ed from other PI and OGC declarations that people figure "hey, it was good enough for this other guy." That doesn't mean this is a good practice.
When you see a PI declaration that doesn't make sense, you should either ask the publisher if that was what they meant, or just avoid the content. Either they made a mistake and will fix it, or they don't care that the content if crippled (whether crippling was their initial intention) and they don't want to go through the trouble of fixing it. The only way to find out for sure is to ask, politely: "Did you really mean to PI such-and-such in your product X? I really think it is derivative of OGC from product Z. If you did mean to, could I have a license to use it in my product Y?"
Joe
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
