> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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.
I understand that. The problem is that "Does the PI ever appear inside material marked as OGC?" is not the converse of "Does the PI never appear inside material marked as OGC?", so you won't necessarily answer 'yes' to one if you answer 'no' to the other. If you want it to be a 'yes' answer for safe compliance, it needs to be "Does all of your PI appear within material marked as OGC?"
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us ...and our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. -- Emperor Turhan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
