> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of woodelf > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 2:59 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: 37 questions (was re: [Ogf-l] Re: Possible > Formation of Project) > > > At 13:31 -0400 8/4/03, Martin L. Shoemaker wrote: > > > At 6:00 -0400 8/4/03, Martin L. Shoemaker wrote: > >> > > >> >* Does the PI ever appear inside material marked as OGC? > >> > >> Why that question? The whole point of PI is to protect material > >> that appears inside of OGC. > > > >That's why the question. If they're claiming PI on something > that never > >appears inside OGC, that's a strong hint that they missed > the point of > >PI, and need to do more research. It's not conclusive: > someone in legal > >might claim something as PI just in case someone in > creative, editing, > >or proofing dropped the ball and let the term slip into the > OGC. But I > >think that answering the question leads them to understand PI better. > > Then shouldn't the question be "Does the PI never appear inside > material marked as OGC?" PI that appears both in and out of OGC is > inconclusive--it's PI that never appears in OGC that raises a flag.
Well, the list as originally proposed was designed so that "YES" answers were all good indicators that you were properly licensed. In your version, a "YES" answer means a pointless PI declaration, which may not make the license invalid, but does mean the author missed the point of PI. Martin L. Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.TabletUML.com -- The UML tool you don't have to learn! _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
