Hmmmmm. Why do I get the nagging feeling that all this logical
debate about ambiguous things in the licence is going to end up
with...
1) Lee and Woodelf flying over to Sweden and
forming limited companies.
2) Woodelf publishing something under the OGL and a
PI licence. Something that doesn't include any content from the SRD or other OGL
documents[1], but does include many examples of OGC and PI (and crippled
OGC) so that every possible legal angle exists in the document (even including a
simple computer program). Oh, and it will also include all the possible
types of IP.
3) Lee then publishing something (acknowledging the
PI licence) using all of these types of contents in every sort of way
possible. Including:
Licensed PI (both IP and non IP) defined as
Woodelf's PI, Lee's PI or OGC.
Unlicensed PI in the same three ways.
Stuff derivative of Woodelf's OGC claimed as
PI.
Etc, etc.
...and then if that isn't bad enough.
4) Peter then doing the same thing via his own
limited company (but without acknowledging the PI licence). As he is
Swedish he can also translate all the possible things into another language as
well.
5) After we end up with three really complex
examples of OGL documents. I can see them all going down to the Swedish courts
and suing each other for one dollar/euro damages or whatever the
minimum amount is to get into court.
I'm sure they would all *love* to argue this out in a court test
case (representing themselves) just so they could establish a legal
precedent on the many issues they have all been debating over
time.
;-)
David S
[1] The non-use of other OGL works is to isolate the work from
any other works so that the owners of those works can not claim an interest
in the case. I don't know if they could come in on other grounds,
though.
|
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
