>On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, woodelf (lists) wrote:
>
> > >I'm only responding to this topic again because I'm really starting
> > >to think that the problem people are having is not with the law but with
> > >the English langauge. The license requires you to clearly indicate
> > >PORTIONS (emphasis mine) of the work which are OGC. (I've also already
> > >explained why this legally makes a difference and is required.) Since the
> > >language doesn't include qualifiers about only indicating some portions
> > >and not others, the plain English (and not surprisingly the legal)
> > >understanding of such a sentence is that ALL PORTIONS which are OGC must
> > >be indicated. Which is essentially the same as saying that wherever OGC
> > >is used it must be clearly indicated. So the concept comes directly from
> > >section 8 of the OGL.
> >
> > i know i'm probably wearing thin on your patience, but please bear
> > twith me. i'm not trying to be obstinate, i'm really trying to
> > figure this out. so just pretend i'm really slow (which, apparently,
> > i am), and help me with this part. the part that reads as a leap of
> > logic to me is between "ALL PORTIONS which are OGC must be indicated"
> > and "the same as saying that wherever OGC is used it must be clearly
> > indicated".
>
>I think I see your problem. There are different ways (both valid) of
>understanding what is meant when I state that "wherever OGC is used it
>must be clearly indicated." Of course I did clear (very explicitly) in
>earlier posts. No where do I say the actual indication of OGC must occur
>wherever OGC occurs. What I said was that you must clearly indicate all
>portions of text that are OGC - which is the same as saying that
>every place that OGC occurs must be identified as OGC. It is possible to
>indicate every portion of text that is OGC by making a statement at the
>beginning or end of a work that tells you how to identify which portions
>are OGC. I've never claimed that how the portion(s) are being indicated
>must be explained every place where OGC is located in the work.
>
> > let me take a very concrete example: Relics & Rituals. have you seen
> > this book? do you think it complies with section 8 of the WOGL?
> > because it does *not* indicate OGC "wherever used". the actual
> > indication of OGC (that is, the info that is necessary for the reader
> > to identify which portions of the work are OGC and which are not)
> > occurs on the title page, while the OGC itself is scattered
> > throughout the book. so, do you think that R&R is in violation of
> > section 8 of the WOGL, or do we simply have a different
> > interpretation of section 8? [for that matter, IIRC, none of the
> > published D20 books that i've looked at so far (Diomin leaps
> > immediately to mind) indicate the OGC at the point of said OGC. they
> > all seem to use some sort of graphical, organizational, or
> > typographical technique to distinguish OGC, and then indicate in the
> > introduction that said graphical, organizational, or typographical
> > technique designates OGC. for every D20 book that i've actually
> > looked at (a very small subset of the whole, mind you), you would be
> > unable to identify OGC without referencing the title page, TOC page,
> > or introduction (depending on the work in question), yet none of
> > those has any OGC in said locations, so the indication is not in the
> > same place as the OGC itself.]
>
>Since I used R&R as the example earlier to show that it does in fact
>indicate OGC wherever OGC occurs, I'm guessing you either aren't receiving
>all the messages on the list or aren't bothering to read all the messages
>clearly.
i've read everything i've received with the subjects "Re: [Ogf-l]
Section 8 [was Attempting to fully underst", "[Ogf-l] Software
Issues", and "RE: [Ogf-l] SRD, Computer Junk, and Going Nuts...".
i'm still working on catching up on "[Ogf-l] Attempting to fully
understand the software is...", but it was on the back burner because
the issues in that thread seemed much more software-specific than
these other threads. so if that's where your explanation is, that's
why i haven't read it yet.
>As I've said above, how you are reading my statement is a valid
>interpretation of the written word, but is not the only (or any more
>valid) interpretation. And it was cleared up very early on that I've
>never meant that the method of indication had to be explained every time
>OGC is being indicated. What I've said is that every portion (which is
>the same as saying location or place) that is OGC must be clearly
>indicated and that the appendix concept does not clearly indicate those
>portions of the rest of the work that are OGC.
>
> > >As I've said, I'm tired of this topic. If you don't want to take my
> > >advice (someone with a law degree) that's fine with me.
> >
> > the question isn't whether or not i'll take your advice. i have no
> > intention of using the WOGL (or the D20STL) for anything, ever. i'm
> > philosophically inclined to use the OOGL if i don't want to keep a
> > work of mine closed. please don't take this discussion
> > personally--i'm not. i'm just trying to get to the root of this.
>
>Root of what? The original question resolves around does an appendix
>sufficiently meet the requires of the OGL section 8. Section 8 requires
>that all portions of a work that are OGC be clearly indicated. Not simply
>that all the OGC used in a work be indicated at least once. An appendix
>only identifies OGC in the main body of the work by saying essentially
>"find those parts of the main body which are identical to this appendix."
>As further explanation of why I feel a court will have problems accepting
>such an assertion, try figuring out whether the appearance of three
>consecutive words in the appendix makes those words OGC. How about a
>whole sentence? a paragraph? stat block? what if the formatting changes
>between appendix & body? what if there are proofing problem (extremely
>prevalent in the RPG industry) resulting in differences between appendix &
>body?
ok, so we seem to agree on the degree of specificity of location of
the indication of the OGCed text vis-a-vis the text itself. so now i
don't understand why you believe that "all text in italics in this
work is OGC" is acceptable, but "all text reproduced in Appendix A of
this work is OGC" isn't. if anything, i would've thought the latter
method preferable, because it prevents ambiguity--if you want to
reuse something, or build on it, check Appendix A--if it's there,
it's OGC and you can work with it. if it's not, it's not, and you
can't. [setting aside, for the moment, the issue of PI within OGC.]
maybe i'm just not a "reasonable person", but i would've honestly
thought the latter method better, from the standpoint of actually
making it practical to reuse OGC, which is the nominal point of all
this. if your motive for the identification is that when someone is
casually reading the work they can't miss OGC, then, true, it would
be less effective. but i was under the impression that it didn't
matter if the reader could identify OGC, only the re-user.
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/woodelph/
And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?" They replied,
"You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being,
the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood
revealed." And Jesus replied, "What?"
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
