On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, woodelf (lists) wrote:
> 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.
"all text reproduced in Appendix A of this work is OGC" doesn't even come
close to meeting the requirements of the OGL. To begin with it's
backwards from how the appendix approach should be attempted which is to
clearly state that the entire appendix is OGC and then say that material
in the body identical to the appendix is also OGC. Your approach makes a
completely nebulous assertion that there is OGC buried somewhere in the
many body of the work and then claims that if some text from the main body
is reproduced in the appendix that text is OGC. Technically your
statement could mean that some of the Appendix (that which isn't a
reproduction of text in the body) is also not OGC.
The legal point of identifying OGC is NOT to make it practical for people
to reuse the OGC. Legally the point of identifying OGC is to subject said
material to the terms of the license rather than to standard copyright
laws. As long as you continue to think the legal reason for identifying
OGC is to make it practical for people to re-use OGC you are likely to
continue to make the mistake that it is ok for the OGC to be easy to
identify in one part of a work and nearly impossible to identify in
another part. The terms of the licences require (for extremely good legal
reasons) that OGC be OGC everywhere. The only way copyrightable material
can be OGC is if it is identified as OGC.
The appendix approach is a nice way to provide other developers with an
easy way to re-use the OGC in a work. But it does not remove the
obligation to clearly indicate OGC where it occurs in the rest of the
work. Saying "everything identical to what appears in this appendix is
OGC wherever it appears in this book" will not meet the legal obligation
of clear indication in my (legally trained) opinion. And I've listed the
numerous reasons in other posts. The most obvious is just how much of the
work in the appendix must be together to constitute being identical -- a
whole sentence? a phrase? three words? which of these would be OGC in
the body of the work if they were identical to something in the appendix?
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
