On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Brad Thompson wrote:
> > And unfortunately the law is still
> > trying to work out many issue surrounding computer programs and copyrights
> > which means anyone using the OGL in such a way is walking into very
> > unsettled territory.
>
> We can tell the courts what *WE* mean when we say 'software' by describing
> it. We can tell them what constitutes "clear indication" to us in OGC
> software by describing it. No, it won't cover every new eventuality, but
> then we don't have to wait until we retire to use OGC in software either.
Since it is a reasonable person standard, the courts really don't care
what someone writes into a contract in an attempt to define something like
software or clear indication. Even if it's written into the contract that
a MUD or database must provide a separate folder containing all OGC, it's
perfectly feasible that a court would say that the OGC material is still
not clearly identified IN THE WORK itself. Ryan cannot fix this, you
cannot fix this, no one writing a contract can fix this because the
reasonable person standard is a common law concept not a contractually
alterable concept. Sorry, but that's how our legal system operates.
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
