On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Doug Meerschaert wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alec A. Burkhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Whether a statement in the second
> >part stating that whenever you see the following material in the main book
> >it is OGC would be sufficient would require a court determination.
>
> Er, only if it isn't uncontested by all parties with standing.
Sorry but the fact that it's uncontested by all parties does almost
nothing for determining if it is a legally sufficient means of clearly
identifying the OGC. Lots of things can be done and go unquestioned; that
says nothing about whether or not they comply with the legal requirements
of the license. The whole line of this discussion is concerning the legal
requirements of the license regarding clearly identifying OGC. I said I
wouldn't want to be the lawyer arguing that an OGC appendix with the
statement that "anywhere this same material appears in the main text, it
is OGC" is sufficient to clearly identify the OGC in the main text, I
didn't say it couldn't turn out that such a method is considered clearly
identifying the OGC. Of course such a method would likely be very cost
ineffective for printed media.
> Reasonable person Adam picks up "the stars of wellsville", a silly d20 game.
> Adam decides he wants to write his own silly game, "Adam's Apples." As long
> as he can figure out what parts are open and what parts aren't without
> asking, it's all good. It doesn't matter if the OGC is in italics, in an
> appendix in the back, or is "everything except for page 9's sidebar.
It's all good in terms of people being able to use the OGC, but that isn't
the requirement in the license. The license requires that if you use OGC
you must clearly indicate which portions of your work are OGC. So any time
you use OGC and don't clearly indicate that that portion of the work is
OGC you are violating the license. It doesn't matter that you also
collect all the OGC somewhere to make it easy for people to use the OGC in
their own works. That's just something nice for other developers of open
products. But the requirements of the license are written to ensure that
OGC must remain open, not to ensure that developers can make further use
of OGC. It's a subtle distinction but an extremely important one.
And remember that I originally was objecting to the idea of a simple
appendix as the whole of OGC identification. After I pointed out that
wasn't complying with the license people added the line about claiming
that anywhere the material from the appendix appears in the main book it
is OGC. The raw concept of just collecting the material in an appendix is
not in compliance with the license. The addition of that single sentence
means that it might be in compliance with the license. I just don't think
it obviously passes the reasonable person test as to what clear
identification means. That's one problem with the reasonable person test,
no such person actually exists but courts have to try and figure out what
such a person would think.
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
