> Clear indication means that
> a person has to be able to identify the OGC wherever it appears. Is
> telling a person to compare everything in the main text with what's in the
> appendix a reasonable way of identifying the OGC in the main text?
> Perhaps.
Not to nitpick but you did it again. You added "wherever it appears" when
you define clear indication. The OGL doesn't define clearly indicate. Does
the legal system have a legal definition of "clearly indicate"? Because this
is not how I would define it but I would change my thinking if this was a
legal definition.
> And as someone with legal training, I've stated that I wouldn't want to be
> the one having to make your argument for you in a court of law. The
> requirement isn't whether a reasonable person would conclude that the same
> text appearing elsewhere is OGC, it's whether such a designation clearly
> identifies the OGC. In a work contain very little OGC I think this would
> be easier to accept than a work with a lot of OGC. In a large work, I
> think a strong argument could be made that such an appendix does not
> clearly identify the OGC because of the difficulty in keep track of
> everything in the appendix when examining the main text.
Actually I (the reasonable person that I am) would prefer the appendix
method as it is all in one place. That to me is easier to digest. The only
people who care about which portions are OGC and which are not are people
who want to extend as use the OGC. I would think the appendix method would
seem the most reasonable to them.
Robert Kozak
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
