----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] SRD, Computer Junk, and Going Nuts...
>
> If I receive a copy of the binary file without the folder, I haven't
> received the material necessary to allow me to excersize my rights under
the
> OGL. I may not in fact ever even know that the material I have received
> entitles me to excersize those rights. In turn, being ignorant of those
> rights and the obligations which are attached to them, I might pass the
> binary on to a 3rd party, thus breaching the terms of the OGL myself. And
> anyone to whom I distribute that binary will be in the same boat I am in.
>
> Finally there is no way anyone can require that the binary file and the
> folder be distributed together - because adding such a requirement to the
> terms of the distribution of the Open Game Content portions of the work
> would be attempting to make a new licensing term binding on the OGC, which
> is specifically disallowed by the terms of the OGL.
>
Um but isnt that the same as me taking an adventure which states all bold
text is OGC, then removing this statement and distributing it. I have now
caused the terms to be violated by not clearly identifying. Now AFAIK it is
my obligation to clearly identify what is OGC if i reuse OGC. So if i
distribute a binary and text file saying what is OGC. Then the person who
receives it knows what is OGC. If they descide to redistribute the ogc then
it is there responsibility to clearly identify it not mine.
Example
Any of the following text is OGC.
THERE ONCE WAS A BIG TROLL. This troll carried a log.
By A.Person
I then take A.Persons OGC and redistribute it.
There once was a big troll who had a dog.
By g.preston
I have viloated the OGL by not clearly identifying OGC. Now a.Person is in
no way responsible for this. Likewise A.Person distributes a binary file and
a text file together, the text file states that the binary is OGC.
G.Preston then distributes the binary without text, it is g.preston that
has violated the OGL not A.Person. Thus I can't see why A.Person can't
distribute as seperate folders/files so long as they are packaged together.
Saying that another person could then distribute it without the clearly
identifying mark is no good, because as shown above no matter how you
identify it a person could distribute it without the note saying what is
OGC, or even forget to show it in the same font etc.
Now there may be other reasons that prevent the seperate folder option but
I don't think the one given above is one of those.
As for the second paragraph then their is no requirement for me when
resuing OGC that is in bold in one product to keep it in bold and tell
people that its OGC if its in bold. The requirement is for me to clearly
identify it! how the person I obtained it from did it is irrelavent. If I
choose not to redistribute the text file which as you say cannot be
required, then that is fine so long as "I find another way to clearly
identify OGC"
Is this not correct?
bb.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.mups.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
