<<You'll note that in my longer version of what Ryan said, I used the
words "pre-existing body of" etc. If the concept didn't exist in the
public domain for you to source *before* someone else claimed it as
PI, then the PI claim may be valid.
Spike Y Jones
>>
Spike you will get ZERO debate from me that this is how the license should have been written. But can you point me to the requirements in the license that PI (_not_ OGC) has to be novel or otherwise an enhancement over the prior art.
There is only one real requirement for PI is that it be "owned", but I really have no idea how you own a "theme" or "pose".
How are you and Ryan drawing up your definition of "ownership" of PI to include "enhancement over the prior art" and novelty? I have never heard of anyone owning a "theme" or a "pose" outright before.
I think if "ownership" could be unambiguously defined then the actual laundry list of PI elements would be only there to reinforce what we already know. Without a definition of ownership that can apply to each and every kind of listed PI, however, then I'm not sure we've gotten any closer to understanding the issue.
Lee
