>As I've said, I'm not a programmer. But all that has been said is that
>wherever OGC is used it must be clearly identified and remain open. That
>is all that Ryan has said. If there is no way to clearly identify OGC
>that is being used by a program then there's no way that program can ever
>be legal under the OGL. A separate listing of what is being used by the
>program is NOT the same thing.
"8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must
clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing
are Open Game Content."
Ryan himself has pointed out that he's not a lawyer or other expert
in this matter, other than being more-or-less in charge of it. so
where did this concept of "wherever used" come from? i see nothing
in the WOGL (the only legally-binding document on this matter) or
even the FAQ accompanying it (merely advisory, in any case) that
indicates that the OGC must be "identified" "wherever used". it only
says that it must be "clearly *indicated*" [emphasis mine], and says
nothing about where such indication must occur, other than the
"reasonable person" test for general compliance with the WOGL. so,
unless you're going to demand that text containing OGC be screened
with a half-tone shading containing a texturization of "OGC", i don't
see how you can claim that putting OGC in italics with notice
elsewhere that italic text in the work in question indicates OGC is
obviously superior in compliance to extracting the OGC text,
reproducing it in a separate portion of the work, nad explaining that
the text is OGC, both there and where it originally occurs in the
text.
[i'm not certain that the difference between "identify" and
"indicate" is significant in this context. my gut feeling is that
identify is more specific, and that if that were the word used it
would lend more credence to the idea that the labeling must occur at
the location of the OGC. but my dictionary (conventional, not legal)
doesn't really support that distinction, so it's probably one of
connotation, not denotation. i'm focusing here on the "wherever"
issue--i'm just using the accurate terminology from the WOGL for
clarity.]
At 08:38 -0700 6/4/01, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote:
>been discussed. The separate folder idea has generally been put forth by
>people to say that there is no way to identify OGC in the program itself
>but they could provide a directory which contains all the OGC. That isn't
>acceptable under the OGL or any theory of copyleft protection.
says who? this is not a rhetorical question. please point me to the
section of the WOGL, or a legal document/statement from the OGF, or a
court ruling, that supports this for the WOGL, specifically.
similaryl, i'd love to see something on copyleft in general that
supports this position (especially if said documentation/legal
case/whatever also supports the WOGL idea of copylefted material with
proprietary content withheld (PI can occur within OGC, and remains
non-open), or even just the mixture of copylefted and copyrighted
material that the WOGL permits).
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/woodelph/
Trying to place all political opinions on a 'left'/'right' continuum is
every bit as useless as trying to discuss color theory with only
mentioning 'red' (by which you actually mean purple) and 'hot' (all
other colors, but usually orange).
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
