onsdag 25 februari 2004 22:45 skrev jdomsalla: > It's my understanding (and this is a draftsman trying to make sense of > legalese, so if wrong, I'd welcome learning such is the case) that when you > find capital-U Use, this is the definition as given in 1g, while little-u > use would be the dictionary definition, the same manner the capital-D > Distributing is defined in 1c. > > Therefore, you could read 1g to mean: "Capital-U Use includes the > dictionary definition of use and also includes copying, Distributing, > editing, formatting, modifying, translating, or otherwise creating > something else with it." > > So are the lawyers here finally rubbing off on me, or did I farge that all > up?
OK. That makes sense. The original question was if the definition of 1.g also implied that by reading the OGC and indeed by using the OGC in a game one would accept the offer stated in the license. This would pretty much make every user a licensee. Which might not be desireable, on the other hand it might not have any practical consequences at all. I do know that *if* a licensor in Sweden would like to make *sure* that a licensee in Sweden would be bound by the license, he would have to make sure that all users of his work were aware of the terms of the license before doing any of the things defined in 1.g. /Peter _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
