<<So, rather than take the interpretation that the industry has adopted,
you prefer one that has almost exactly the same effect?
>>
I'm not certain I'd agree that almost complying with a license is the same as complying with a license. And, depending on how a judge rules, if he agrees that everything in a covered work is OGC except the parts that are PI, I'd hate to be the one who failed to declare some giant chunk of the covered work as either one and have him decide for me what it is. I'm not certain this would happen, as the judge could just as readily say read that the entire covered work must be OGC + PI and assume that my failure to designate the remaining portion might mean that I intended not to license it and he might then just treat it as a trivial violation of the license.
Which a judge will decide? I'm not going to find out. So, I don't consider that the difference is trivial.
I think when it comes to declarations, you need to darn well identify everything the license mandates that you declare and declare it as PI or OGC. Leave nothing undeclared or misdeclared that you have to clearly declare as an OGL requirement. Doing otherwise leaves you open to licensing violations or worse if your products ever get into a court.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
