On 5 Sep 2005 at 21:44, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Except that to come to that conclusion you have to utterly ignore the > part of the license that says: > > "OGC means any work covered by the license excluding Product Identity"
Sorry, but that is NOT what it says. There is a whole lot more to that definition that that one single phrase. You want to concentrate on that phrase, and only that phrase and ignore the rest of the definition. Is the entire definition poorly worded and unclear? Yes, it is. But after reading through the entire license it is apparent that you have to declare what is OGC, you have to declare what is PI. Since the OGC definition lists what must be OGC, and also states that you can claim additional OGC before it states the part that you keep quoting, it can quite easily be said that the part you keep quoting is in error due to poor wording. The rest of the license would appear to support this. You mentioned how courts tend to rule against the drafter in regards to contracts of adhesion, yet you are not realizing that your interpretation is acutally not of benefit to the draftee (and only potentially slightly more beneficial to the drafter). If anything, your interpretation is more restrictive to a person using the license. The way I see it, the interpretation that I have would be much more beneficial to the licensee, and would be the one that a court would rule for. TANSTAAFL Rasyr (Tim Dugger) System Editor Iron Crown Enterprises - http://www.ironcrown.com E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
