From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Doesn't this give rise to difficulties in the safe-harbor concept?
No. I don't think the defintion of a 'work' is going to pose any problems,
except to people who are trying to violate the terms of the license by
getting cute with packaging.
> However, if that site were to also DISTRIBUTE the materials that were
being
> reviewed (such as is done at Tucows, Walnut Creek, CNet, etc., and further
> assuming that they had the right to do so), it could be argued that the
site
> has created a breach of contract because the entire web site is actually a
> monolithic whole constituting a single 'work'
That would be silly. Even if someone attempted to litigate under such a
construction, I suspect that the matter will already have been settled by
precedent that web sites, in their entirety, do not comprise a single "work"
as coceived by Title 17.
Let's not worry about changing the license until someone actually finds a
loophole and sues - because I suspect that nobody ever will.
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
