I'm confused again now, Lee. Don't the people that talk about "closed
content" define it as:
"That part of the work in an OGLed document that isn't OGC
or PI. And is therefore not affected by the OGL (but is covered by standard
copyright law)."
So isn't their infered definition (of the third type of
content) legally identical to yours?
It sounds like the only *possible* difference between what you say and they
say, is that some people might be thinking that:
"Closed content" is *in* the work (as defined by the OGL) but not
covered by the OGL.
But other people are thinking that:
"Closed content" is *not in* the work (as defined by the OGL) and therefore
not covered by the OGL.
As far as I can see these are legally identical as both of them end up as
things that are not covered. Both definitions would leave you with text
that was covered by standard copyright law (or IP law and other relevant stuff
if it applies) but not covered by the OGL. This is like one person saying
"-1+1=0" and someone else saying "1+ (-1)=0" (both ways of adding these two up
leave you with zero effect).
Is the point you are trying to get through to us that both of these things
are *not* legally identical if *reused* by someone else? (I understand that the
someone else would, obviously, also have to be using OGC (or licenced
PI) from the first persons work for the OGL to be involved in
some way. Only then would the two definitions of the third type of content
to be important. Am I right, or am I barking up the wrong tree?)
David S
|
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
