<<Well, there's a reason appellate courts look at original intent - if an
interpretation of the wording is at cross purposes to the intent,
chances are that interpretation is not correct. I understand his
reasons, but the stated intent is fundamental to a correct
interpretation.
>>
The stated intent seems to me to be, at first glance, to offer protections to things which aren't protectable under copyright and trademark standards. At first glance it seems that you have to be the owner of PI to declare it as such. It seems at first glance that those items of PI which aren't copyrightable or trademarkable must have some standard of ownership foreign to anything we currently understand about IP ownership.
What are those standards of ownership? What body of law or what clear intent of the license clues us in to PI (as opposed to OGC ownership)?
Lee
