At 01:03 PM 1/24/02 -0700, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: >Legally if you want something to be non-exhaustive you need to include >language to that affect.
Like the typical "including, without limitation, the following..." ? >Plus the single time Ryan said anything could be PI, he was actually >trying to make an entirely different point - as he pointed out after Clark >& I explained the language issue. It's good to know that in some things, most authorities seem to agree. :-) To some extent that point is irrelevant to the matter of an OGC archive, though. I think that the important thing for that purpose is that PI -- whatever it may or may not include -- needs to be clearly identified. As long as that stipulation is true, and enforceable (to some extent, anyway; I imagine no one relishes the idea of "ratting someone out" to Wizards legal), then redacting PI is reasonably possible. Otherwise, vague statements like "all the stuff about our setting and characters is PI" make it difficult to practically extract the OGC from a text. Sixten Otto _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
