Oops! Not QUITE as weird as it first looked to me. In November, Paul posted this message:
**************************************************************** SUBJECT: [Ogf-l] Section 15 Quick Section 15 question. Say I'm using material from the same author, can I collapse their section 15 listing? For instance Item A Copyright 2001, Joe Blow Item B Copyright 2001, Joe Blow Can it become Item A and Item B Copyright 2001, Joe Blow I know you have to use Section 15 exactly, but its also been mentioned that you don't have to have redundancies...hence my confusion Paul W. King **************************************************************** Today, he posted this message: **************************************************************** SUBJECT: [Ogf-l] Section 15 How should S15 properly look if someone has multiple items that are used? For example: I derive material from person/group/company X from their sources A, B and C. How should my S15 read (assuming that the copyright info is the same as well): Option 1: A, B, C Copyright Someyear X Option 2: A Copyright Someyear X B Copyright Someyear X C Copyright Someyear X Thank you for your time. Paul W. King TL NBoNPCs, FaNCC **************************************************************** Your answer was: **************************************************************** Paul- You must list the copyright notices EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR in the source work. Since there is now way the source work lists all three works as "A, B, C copoyright year name" you cant do it either. Clark **************************************************************** But when I received your answer, I couldn't tell what it was in regard to; so I sorted by subject. And here's the weird part (though not nearly as weird as an eight month gap): I hadn't received Paul's question of today yet. (In fact, I received his question 59 minutes after your answer, and 16 minutes after his thank-you for your answer.) And since the two questions are very similar AND had the identical subject line, your answer sorted right after the November question and addressed the same person as the November question and had the same subject as the November question AND ANSWERED the November question. That led me to believe that we had email limbo lasting much longer than it actually did. Maybe this is a sign that I should throw away some old email. (Yeah, like that'll ever happen...) Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Clark Peterson > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 12:49 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: The weirdness that is email (was RE: [Ogf-l] > Section 15) > > > I should check the dates because for some reason I get > mail like 2 months late from that list for some > reason. Sorry I didnt check the date :) Did any of you > just get that email too? > > Clark > > ===== > http://www.necromancergames.com > "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free > http://sbc.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Ogf-l mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/l> istinfo/ogf-l > _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
