> > woodelf
> >
> > 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".
>
>"Wherever used" isn't quite correct. "Wherever distributed" is more
>accurate, but in this case the term was meant to mean "wherever used in a
>work you distribute" and so it is close enough. You must mark all of the
>OGC you distribute.
ok, i dunno about Alec, but we're having a miscommunication about
locations. i've heard people use "wherever" to refer to specific
locations within a larger work. i.e., starting each display of OGC
text with a tag that says it's OGC. that requirement/interpretation
i am disputing. if people mean "wherever" to refer to the
location/availability of the work as a whole, i.e., each release of
the work must include identification of OGC contained within it, then
i have no disagreement. i agree that there is no question that the
work as a whole must include means for the user to identify contained
OGC.
> > 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.
>
>That's not a fair question. You didn't cite any sources for your opinion
>either. Besides, that's the sort of question you hire a lawyer to answer
>for your specific application.
sure it is. i didn't cite sources for my opinion because i don't
have an opinion on that matter. i'm not putting forth an opinion of
my own, i'm disputing a statement (made as fact, not opinion, though
i'm willing to chalk that up to the communication medium) made by
someone else. the claim was made that "The separate folder
idea...isn't acceptable under the OGL or any theory of copyleft
protection." i want to see documentation, or at least support (i.e.,
rulings, theories, random essays found on the 'net, whatever--i'm not
very demanding), for this opinion, which refers to "ANY theory of
copyleft" (emphasis mine), as well as the WOGL. ok, that's not quite
true, i do have an opinion, but it's one based specifically on lack
of evidence, rather than evidence. i can't show you sources to
support my opinion because my opinion is simply that, in the absence
of evidence, we can make no absolute claims.
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/woodelph/
The Laws of Anime <http://www.abcb.com/laws/index.htm>:
#21 Law of Tactical Unreliability
Tactical geniuses aren't....
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
