The question becomes: since X declared the name Q as Product Identity and W contains the name Q AND W references X in its Section 15, has D violated Section 7 with regard to X? I can't really figure out what makes sense. I THINK it makes sense to say that the derivation chain for PI ends at the first product where the PI is not declared.
here's the problem with that interpretation: there's no "derivation chain". Your Sec. 15 doesn't say "i derived from Y, which said it derived from X", it just says "i derived from X and Y"--whether that's strictly true or not. Yet another reason for citing derivations more precisely.
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
William Safire's Rules for Writers: Don't use no double negatives. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
