So then what does "work" mean?

Does "work" and "covered work" = the entire product?
Or does "work" simply mean "that text to which the OGL
applies"?

Lets us a book that has 4 chapters. The chapters are
as follows:

Ch 1: Introduction (no OGC)
Ch 2: Classes and Skills (uses OGC)
Ch 3: Setting Information (no OGC)
Ch 4: Monsters and Magic items (uses OGC).

Can I say the "work" is just chapters 2 and 4? Or, in
your view, does the "work" mean the whole book?

The problem isnt just the definition of OGC, its also
the definition of "work."

Clark

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I've been discussing this "off list" with people so
> I've decided to post on 
> list.
> 
> It involves the definition of OGC.
> 
> "OGC... means any work covered by the license,...
> but specifically excludes 
> Product Identity."
> 
> Contractual construction requires that you give
> effect to this if possible, 
> even if it renders something else redundant.  A poor
> attempt at contractual 
> construction is one where you have to delete a
> portion of the contract for it to 
> make sense when you read it.
> 
> The literal construction of this statement is that
> as soon as you cover a 
> work with the license, it is all 100% OGC except
> those parts that are PI.  You 
> choose to define the "work" within the legal limits
> of such definition.  You 
> choose to cover it.  But as soon as you have defined
> a work, and as soon as you 
> cover it with the license, 100% of that covered work
> is OGC except the parts 
> that are PI, per the above definition.
> 
> You must then clearly designate what is OGC and what
> is PI.  OGC declaration 
> has effect, but it is a redundant effect, since by
> declaring PI and covering a 
> work with the license, everything that is not PI in
> the covered work is OGC.  
> So, nominally if your PI declaration is clear, then
> the OGC is the covered 
> work minus the parts that are PI.
> 
> The above statement explicitly says:
> 
> OGC = COVERED WORK - PI
> 
> OR
> 
> COVERED WORK = OGC + PI
> 
> Almost everything else in the OGC definition is
> valid, but redundant, because 
> of the broad definition of OGC as "the covered work"
> minus the PI.  This 
> means that almost everything else in the OGC
> definition is a redundant subset of 
> "any work covered" minus the PI.
> 
> Somebody posted something from Clark saying that
> this construction 
> "conflicts" with other parts of the license.  In
> fact, this interpretation does not 
> "conflict" an iota with the rest of the license.  If
> it did, it would be a poor 
> attempt at contractual construction by me, because
> it would not be giving effect 
> to all parts of the license.  Reading other parts as
> redundant is not the 
> same as reading in a "conflict".
> 
> The post I got that apparently came from Clark
> claimed that, by my logic, you 
> could just rewrite the license to equate "covered
> work" with "OGC", which is 
> not my logic.  My logic is that the contract says:
> COVERED WORK = OGC + PI, so 
> that COVERED WORK = OGC only for covered works with
> no PI.
> 
> I analyze statutes all the time, and they often have
> lots of redundancy built 
> into them.  That does not equate to a "conflict" of
> statute or, in the cases 
> of contracts, "conflicting clauses in the contract".
> 
> Anyone care to give an alternate construction of the
> above sentence that does 
> not read it out of existence?  Lots of people seem
> to want to do two things:
> 
> a) pretend that the OGC declaration is all
> important, and 
> b) ignore the clause that says explicitly that
> "OGC... means any work covered 
> by this license" except the parts that are PI
> 
> One reason why the OGC + PI declarations are
> important, is that they, 
> together, tell you what the "covered work" is in the
> eyes of the OGL end user, and 
> this is particularly important in compilations (like
> magazines, etc.) where the 
> commercial unit and the "covered work" may not be
> 1:1 equivalent of each other 
> (because you might cover a single article instead of
> the whole magazine).
> 
> 
> Lee
> > _______________________________________________
> Ogf-l mailing list
> [email protected]
>
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
> 



_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l

Reply via email to