I wanted to follow up on the comments about using the section 15 stuff "exactly". There are some on the list who say "exactly means exactly," as if that is proof of a definition. But what, then, does exactly mean?
The license says you have to use the "exact text" So does that mean you have to use the same font type? The same font size? The same layout? One could argue that you essentially have to photographically duplicate the designation for it to be "exact." To be truly "exact" you would have to do all those things. Why do I bring this up? Do I believe we have to do these things? No, of course not. This is just to demonstrate that there is some play even with words that seem to be clear on their face. So next time someone makes an "exact means exact" argument, keep the above in mind. As with all terms, the courts will look to industry usage to help them define the words. I would say right now our industry acknowledges that "exact" does not mean "duplicate redundant entries". I also agree that our industry has not by usage indicated that my "incorporation by reference" approach is acceptable. That is still up in the air. If lots of other people adopt it, perhaps it will. Who knows. 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
