> Alec A. Burkhardt
>
> 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.
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't the reasonable person standard tied to the
interpretation of "clear indication", a statement of our own choosing? If
the license said "OGC must be clearly identified, or in software it must be
identified thusly" wouldn't that take away many of the problems of
interpretation? Obviously we would have to be careful with the alternative
means of identification and the definitions associated with it, but that is
important anyway.
My other thought was that perhaps we are looking at binary files the wrong
way - perhaps a folder/regurgitation is showing us the OGC at all, but
rather is itself the indication of what is OGC in the binary file. Just as
clear indication might be "all instances of the character 'Rocky the Flying
Elf' are PI", might not a clear indication be all of the OGC that went into
the binary? "All occurrences of the text on this page in the binary file
are OGC, everything else is not OGC". It is easy to bundle the text and
license into a binary file in a way that it can be disgorged upon command,
or that a plain ASCII viewer like notepad could see it (although it would
also see lots of stuff that was gibberish to a person).
-Brad
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
