> This contract has > an 'exact text' reference. That means 'exact text.' > Yes, it is unwieldy, > but it means that I can put a reference in, and know > that it won't be > twisted/modified by another person using my work. I > have yet to see a > reference to case law where 'exact text' doesn't > mean 'exact text.'
Custom and usage define words. A good example is the way we dont use the exact text in that we omit the redundant source information in a section 15 entry. > Yes, I am also of the opinion that you have to list > Source A more than once > if referenced in more than one source you are using. > That means a lot of > SRD references. See above. > It's a legal document. They aren't designed to be > pretty. They are > designed to do a job. True, but you are missing the point. How we use the license will in some respects define what the terms mean, as courts turn to the industry to define things. I have never said my "incorporation by reference" approach was clearly allowed by the license. I believe it is. It is certainly arguably compliant. Some strict constructionists (which it appears you are) would think not. Others--including myself, Ryan Dancey and the WotC legal team--think it fits within the allowable definition. I dont know what the final answer is. I do know that "incorporation" is a perfectly valid and time honored legal concept. Only time will tell. Clark ===== http://www.necromancergames.com "3rd Edition Rules, 1st Edition Feel" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
