<<1. it gobbles up all other definitions. The law doesnt
like that.
>>
There are redundancies directly built into the license. Section #8 is little more than a restatement of one of the types of OGC in 1d.
And in the statement "any work covered by the license, including translations and derivative works" the latter clause is a redundant reinforcement, because "any work" logically includes, as a subset, translations and derivative works. You seem to be complaining that my reading makes part of the license redundant, when part of 1d is already redundant with another part of the license due to poor draftsmanship.
Reading things as redundant is not the same as giving them no effect. Two parts of a contract can have substantially the same effect without creating a contractual conflict. Indeed the second meaning for OGC and Section 8 are examples of just that -- redundancies that can co-exist.
<<2. It seems to default everything to open content,
while at the same time another part of the license
requires OGC to be clearly defined. That is inherently
contradictory.
>>
It is not, in fact, contradictory. Under set theory and logic, all parts of Section 1d and Section 8 resolve per my reading of the license.
Nothing is inherently contradictory.
If I give you a paint by numbers that has areas numbered 1, 2, and 3, and I say:
a) Color any one area except one numbered 3 with green; AND
b) You must color all of section 3 in black and may use no black anywhere else; and
c) Color all of the drawing green except those parts that are black
Well, that logically resolves. Two of the instructions overlap redundantly, but that doesn't give rise to an actual conflict, the instructions can co-exist. If you wrote a computer program to do this, it would not create an error. That's a test for an actual conflict of logic. I see none.
<<
3. The definition you reference is general (a broad
statement), whereas the requirement to clearly
identify seems rather specific. The specific will
control over the general.
>>
Even where they don't conflict, but where they can happily co-exist? Set theory and basic logic says there is no conflict of the instructions the way I am interpreting things.
At, law, the specific only controls the general where there is a conflict of a specific law and a general law. Where they can both happily co-exist, the general is still applicable. At least to my understanding of that paradigm. Maybe I don't understand that legal paradigm (again, I'm a policy analyst and lobbyist, not a lawyer).
Lastly, I still remain baffled as to what you feel "OGC... means any work covered by the license.. excluding the parts that are PI" signifies. That's the third meaning for OGC. What meaning do you give it, explicitly? No meaning at all? A meaning that conflicts with something else and loses out?
I think you are seeing internal conflicts in the license, where I am seeing (in this one instance) finally an area where there is no conflict, but only some redundancies.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
