<<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.
>>
While that might be fun, that's rarely the reason I play devil's advocate here. 90% of the time I play devil's advocate is to raise awareness of gray areas of the license. The other 10% is to see if I have a firm grasp on the gray areas myself so that I can see how they would play out in court. There are clever people here, so it's a good forum to ask tough questions and get strong answers. Better here than in a court of law.
There are only gonna be a small percentage of lawyers in the whole nation that are IP lawyers who will know enough about the industry and OGL'd products to give me what I personally would deem to be a solid response to questions on the OGL without paying them for a week of solid research to bring themselves up to speed on the subject.
I therefore think it's best to have a very solid grounding on the issue myself, and then, as needed, to consult an IP lawyer.
I _really_ would like OGL 2.0 with definitions of "ownership", cleaner language in a few parts, etc. If this license had a handful of words reformed, plus an extra couple of sentences it would be FANTASTICALLY clearer. I'd like to see a license which gives me a clearer idea of how "poses" and "themes" can be owned, whether patented rules can be PI'd, etc.
The problem is that such a license would be entirely voluntary to use, and many people might sit around using the older version of the license.
Lee
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
