<<And then you said: "Except in this case, the prevailing wisdom is largely on target."
What you meant was that the Prevailing Wisdom was approximately right,>>
Which is what "largely on target" means, at least to me. Largely on target is not the same as "precisely on target". It's off a little in my opinion.
There are 3 types of content in lots of works containing OGC, but frequently the parts that aren't OGC or PI aren't covered at all by the OGL except tangentially (in the no compatibility declarations clause).
<<Are you sure you're not just arguing to argue?
>>
Dude. If you back and check the archives, you'll see that I've had the same position on this for a LONG time, and it hasn't wavered much.
The distinction is largely academic. The only time it matters is in a question of whether someone has standing (under the OGL, not traditional IP law) to bring a suit regarding something in a work that that's listed as neither OGC nor PI.
The other thing is, my interpretation opens up the people who slap the OGL on a whole book, list that book's copyright in Section 15, etc. to a potentially nasty surprise in court. A court if, it agrees with me that covered works are 100% OGC+PI would then be left to its own devices to determine whether undeclared areas of a work are OGC or PI.
This latter area is not likely to come up at law, so it's largely moot. It is, at best, for most purposes, a technically nuanced distinction that COULD matter a lot, but in practice probably won't.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
