<<No, you actually have claimed that anything under the license is
automatically (which pretty much equals the term "by default") OGC,
except for what is PI. At least that is what you said on the rpg.net
thread.
>>
It's sort of question whether "automatically" is an appropriate choice of words. Even if I used it before it's sort of misleading, since you have a choice of what you PI, then nominally you have a choice of what is OGC in some cases. Where you make no choices about PI, however, then yes, it's pretty much automatically OGC.
<<This is where I am having problems. You are taking only a portion of
the definition given and attempting to make it the only definition,
ignoring the rest of the definition, and pretty much ignoring the rest
of the license where the phrasing tends to counter any possible
interpretation other than the one you are attempting to apply. You
cannot ignore the rest of the definition, which actually comes before
that small part you continually quote.
>>
No, I'm not ignoring the rest of the definition, Tim.
Every time the word "means" is used, as in the form, "OGC means X, and OGC means Y, and OGC means Z" then "means" can be interpreted as "includes".
"OGC includes X, and OGC includes Y, and OGC includes Z, but OGC excludes Product Identity".
Using the basic logic of set theory, you build a merged union of each include and subtract out the exclude. In doing so, you'll see that the part that say "OGC means any work covered by the license" is a superset of all the other things on the list that OGC includes and therefore, by definition, reference to the superset automatically includes all subsets of the supersets by set theory.
So, I'm not ignoring other parts of the definition at all. I'm just appying basic set theory and determining that one of the phrases creates a superset which all the other parts are subsets of. Therefore there's no particular reason to refer to the subsets.
<<
This apparently implies to you that if there is not a PI declaration,
that no matter what the OGC declaration, that OGC declaration is
wrong unless it is for 100% OGC.
>>
Correct.
<<Using my interpretation, the whole magazine is covered by the
license. The magazine declares three articles as OGC. It then
declares the names of characters and place names used within the
articles as PI.
>>
You've used the license incorrectly. You should apply the license so that it covers each of the three articles and has OGC + PI declarations for the articles. Each article is a work, and the magazine is an encompassing work. So you can apply the license to each sub-work individually without applying the license to the magazine.
<<Under your interpretation, it would seem that the magazine would
require a separate copy of the OGL for each of the articles.
>>
Not necessarily. I could apply the OGL to the whole magazine if I wanted, and then apply a PI definition that covers all but three articles. And then create OGC and PI definitions for the three articles. That would render 100% of the covered work OGC + PI.
Again, you keep debating my interpretation, Tim, but one of the individual meanings for OGC is:
"OGC means any work covered by the License, excluding Product Identity". You have yet, after umpteen debating posts, unless I've missed something, you've completely ignored this line and have anted up no alternate interpretation of this line. You are busy pretending like it doesn't exist.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
