<<I'm not arguing this for the sake of it, as I respect your opinions a lot. However, I think that if you dismiss the existence of a third type of content people will misinterpret that and think that they can claim "fair use" or make compatibility claims outside of OGC and PI areas. (I don't think that you think people are able to do either of those things, but I think that people will infer that you do think that from your statements that "covered work"=OGC+PI )
>>
Well, it's unclear what "in conjunction with" means, so perhaps they can make compatibility declarations outside of OGC and PI in a multipart work. Perhaps they can't. Some open source software licenses do a MUCH better job of handling bundled works and multi-part works explicitly.
Consider this. I produce a magazine. Inside the magazine are two articles. One is covered by the OGL and the d20 STL. The other is covered by the OGL only. The magazine is covered by neither explicitly.
The d20 article features the d20 logo and notes specifically that you need the PHB to use it.
The OGL-only article can't refer to the PHB or make compatibility declarations to d20.
That's an example of a multi-part work where some sub-works have compatibility-type declarations (under license) and the other sub-work cannot.
I haven't fully considered the fair use angle. I will think it over some more.
I appreciate the comments. Whether or not you agree, it's a pleasure to converse.
Cheers,
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list Ogf-l@mail.opengamingfoundation.org http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
