I'm pretty much always willing to be proven wrong, particularly in IP law, provided that I learn something in the process. I do civil rights law lobbying and analysis for a living. I do contract law and IP law as a hobby (meaning I have no formal training in it).
But, every time I read that definition, I come to one conclusion: the only way to reach a different conclusion from my own is to make the 3rd meaning of OGC vanish from the contract. Because it is the logical superset of the first two meanings. You give meaning to the first two parts, but you give largely redundant meaning. Is there a way to give non-redundant effect to EVERY part of the OGC definition in such a fashion that every work covered by the license doesn't contain 100% (OGC + PI)?
I'm open to alternatives.
<<Plus, of your "three
definitions" the first two are rather specific and the
third is rather general. Which raises an interesting
issue. But that is another thread.
>>
Feel free to start an alternate thread. People will be intrigued, I'm certain.
Thanks for sticking with the thread. I'm just looking for the details instead of the conclusions. I'm hoping that people start responding with the details -- what does each sub-type of OGC consist of? Are they distinct, or are some subsets of each other? Things like that.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
