Doug Meerschaert wrote:
woodelf wrote:
And, while picking a license may be complex, at least the licenses
are readable and clear. I don't see anything like the
still-unresolved ambiguity over exactly who has authority to declare
IP, what can be declared IP, and what the scope of said declarations is.
Kindly, then, show me the Creative Commons explanation for the
following related questions:
* Does my website with advertisments count as commercial use? * What
if I'm paid for something else and I use it in a matter of my primary
course of work? * What if I sell it but give all of the profits to
charity? All of the gross to charity?
I'll rely on the well-established legal definitions of "not-for-profit"
(which i don't know, but which should be relatively easy to suss
out--the IRS is pretty explicit about these things).
In comparison to the above, the OGL's reliance upon legal copyright
standings for declaring OGL and PI is hardly worth wondering over.
I don't understand this statement. Are you saying that the WotC OGL
builds the authority to declare PI upon copyright law? How is that
possible, given that almost everything in the exemplary list for PI is
not protectable by copyright? Not to mention the fact that it took *how*
much discussion, including trained legal professionals, to sort out
whether the lists in the OGC and PI definitions in the license were
exemplary or definitive? And i still don't see anything in, say, the
WotC FAQ on the license that expresses that understanding in plain
language for others to benefit from the fruits of that discussion. Nor
is there any way, IMHO, to find out about the "third type of content"
allowed when using the WotC OGL, save for digging through the archives
of this list--and even around here we're not 100% in agreement that
there *is* a 3rd type of content under the license.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
