At 01:49 PM 1/24/02 -0700, Alec A. Burkhardt wrote: >Your final sentence is more along the lines of what constitutes *clear >identification* as opposed to *does PI have to be clearly identified*.
Yes. The point I was trying to make was that if there is no requirement to be clear, then vague identifying statements (or the assumption that no such statement is even necessary) would be all we could hope for, and the difficulty in redacting the universe of OGC for "safe" public consumption would grow dramatically. >And please notice that I said MISTAKENLY uses - I am in no way advocating >that anyone attempt to intentionally use something that they think is PI >but poorly identified. If your attempting to use material from a product >which you don't think adequately identifies the PI, contact the publisher >and tell them what your problem is. They should be able to clear up the >issue relatively quickly. I agree completely. One (unstated) factor I was including when talking about the difficultly of extracting OGC was not just the degree to which it would be hard for that person to judge what was PI, but also the time and effort required to wrestle a more precise definition from the original author. And in the face of overly general statements of PI, that's really the only thing that one would have to go on. But judgement will always be required to some extent. I think that an important component of any repository of OGC such as Mr. Nephew proposed, and I've been contemplating, would be a clear mechanism for people to contribute new content, and for content creators to dispute matters of Openness and Identity. This will probably always be a channel through a human, of course, but it should be clear to everyone that maintaining a complete and accurate archive is the #1 priority of such a project. Sixten Otto _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
