--- Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, no. It is there in black and white. You will > > show what *is* OGC, and a > > declaration of what *is not* OGC will not satisfy > > section 8. "[...] You must > > clearly indicate which portions [...] are [OGC]." > > It doesn't get any clearer > > than that. The license TELLS YOU what is clear. > > Mike, that is a nice hypothetical position, but it is > not a real one. The problem is that "Clearly indicate" > is not defined. What does it mean? You cant say that > there is one and only one answer to how that is to be > done. YOu have to acknowlege that there are > potentially many ways to clearly indicate something. > > I could do it by putting all OGC in bold. I could do > it by putting all OGC in a box. I could do it by > putting all OGC in an appendix. I could do it by just > saying "the whole chapter is OGC". But I could make > that designation in the legal appendix or on the first > page, or on the bottom of the specific page. There is > no one right way to "clearly indicate." > > Clark
The method is not in question. As long as you show what is OGC, then you satisfy the license. But saying "everything except the material derived from the works of Beatrix Potter is OGC" does not show you what *is* OGC unless you include the full text of Peter Rabbit and several other books. Incomplete parameters for specifying what is not OGL will not work. My point is that you must indicate what sections are OGC. If you wish to clarify by also saying that certain sections are not, then that is OK, but a negative declaration cannot stand alone. -Mike __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
