a) the "work covered by the license" is just OGC + PI (definition)
b) the license "applies" to the OGC
c) you cannot advertise compatibility "in conjunction with" a work containing OGC
d) you agree not to market or advertise _the_OGC_ with contributor credits
e) section 15 should only contain your OGC copyright (not the copyright of the non OGC stuff)
Part of this comes down to figuring out what "covered" means, what "applies" means, and what "in conjunction with" means.
Let's talk about "applies".
"The license applies to OGC" could be construed to mean one of a few things:
a) that's all that you are actually being licensed and/or
b) this phrase, because it lacks the word "only", doesn't specify the entire limit of what the license applies to, but merely says that OGC is one of the things the license applies to (effectively rendering it a reminder of something obvious, but otherwise not particularly important text)
If somebody writes down that the license only covers transactions of type X and then tries to cover transactions of type Y with the license, then the license seems to be at odds with itself.
Now, "in conjunction with" may well apply to parts of a multi-part work if only one sub-work within that multi-part work is a "work covered by the license", however, if that's true, how does the license apply to behaviors which aren't "covered" by the scope of the license? This raises the question as to whether "covered" has its traditional meaning (i.e., defining the scope of the licenses actual coverage) or if it means something else.
OK, let's address Section 15. Section 15, is supposed to be the copyright on your OGC (and Spike raised the example of a usage saying that). It seems that unless a work is 100% OGC that your Section 15 should somehow reflect the fact that the work containing the OGC is a separate work that contains OGC, like the way that articles are declared as appearing in a magazine in a fashion that's distinct from the magazine's copyright declartion. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that although it may cause some confusion as to the nature of the OGC, that it is industry practice to declare:
"Work Title, Copyright Date"
when you actually mean
"The OGC from Work Title, Copyright Date".
If that were universally understood industry practice, then as long as everyone understood that the latter was what was _actually_ being implied, would the former declaration be acceptable?
As David pointed out, all this may come down to the way one interprets what a "covered work" is. It's totally clear to me that a covered work is 100% OGC and PI, but it's unclear whether that has any particular significance in terms of license construction. Is the phrase "covered" without meaning the way the license has been drafted? If not, what does "covered" imply about the license's scope and then things that it covers?
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
