Clark Peterson wrote:
>I just wanted comments on the new way.
>
It seems safer from a legal liability standpoint, but no safer from a
"encourage proper reuse of OGC" standpoint. A fan's just as likely to
mess up the one as the other.
Hmm... it seems like we've got three and a half different ways to do the
"seperable author credit in S.15" technique.
1: The netbook way: Have a huge S.15 with every individual copyright entry.
Pro: Clear & simple to do.
Con: May be in violation of license's "Exact" wording.
1.5: as above, but have avaliable each seperate work for others to
derive from.
Pro: Definitly not in violation
Con: Much more work, requires dedication of bandwidth, may be
superfluous effort.
2: Clark's idea 1: Have pointers to section 15 add-ins
Pro: Elegant & small.
Con: May be in violation of the license's "Exact" wording.
3: Clark's idea 2: Include individual S.15s in each "mini-work."
Pro: Almost certainly not in violation
Con: Inelegant; takes up space.
For printed products, I think #2 is the best reason; it's simple, and
when coupled with instructions and a promise to not hold in violation
those that follow said instructions, has the least legal questions of
the elegant solutions.
For web products like a 'netbook, either 1.5 or 3 make sense. If it's
freely distributed, it becomes easier to reuse if you just have to cut
non-OGC / past OGL S.1-14.
DM
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
