Welcome to the law! Trying to harmonize something that isnt totally able to be harmonized.
I agree the license says what it says. But here is why your interpretation is problematic: 1. it gobbles up all other definitions. The law doesnt like that. 2. It seems to default everything to open content, while at the same time another part of the license requires OGC to be clearly defined. That is inherently contradictory. 3. The definition you reference is general (a broad statement), whereas the requirement to clearly identify seems rather specific. The specific will control over the general. Bottom line: yes, there is a problem with the wording in the license that is causing all of us confusion. I agree. Clark --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So, Clark, I'm back to the big question -- what does > the third meaning of OGC > mean if it doesn't mean what I think it means. > > I'm pretty much always willing to be proven wrong, > particularly in IP law, > provided that I learn something in the process. I > do civil rights law lobbying > and analysis for a living. I do contract law and IP > law as a hobby (meaning I > have no formal training in it). > > But, every time I read that definition, I come to > one conclusion: the only > way to reach a different conclusion from my own is > to make the 3rd meaning of > OGC vanish from the contract. Because it is the > logical superset of the first > two meanings. You give meaning to the first two > parts, but you give largely > redundant meaning. Is there a way to give > non-redundant effect to EVERY part of > the OGC definition in such a fashion that every work > covered by the license > doesn't contain 100% (OGC + PI)? > > I'm open to alternatives. > > <<Plus, of your "three > definitions" the first two are rather specific and > the > third is rather general. Which raises an interesting > issue. But that is another thread. > >> > > Feel free to start an alternate thread. People will > be intrigued, I'm > certain. > > Thanks for sticking with the thread. I'm just > looking for the details > instead of the conclusions. I'm hoping that people > start responding with the > details -- what does each sub-type of OGC consist > of? Are they distinct, or are > some subsets of each other? Things like that. > > 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
