----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Cortez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [MEGA SNIP] > For example, IMHO if you took the SRD, encoded it into MS-Access, > dropped that MDB onto a CD without compiling it into a standalone DB, > without including a "requires MS-Access label", and by distributing it > to the general gaming population through standard distribution chains > --- Then when the court constructed a "reasonable person", it would be > determined that the average population would not already have MS-Access > installed, they would not know they needed, and once they got the file > they wouldn't know what to do with it. And then it would be ruled that > it was not clearly indicated. > > However if you compiled it for stand-alone use, also included the raw > MDB, indicated that MS-Access was recommended but not required (remember > it's also included in compiled form), and only distributed over the > internet from your website where you had a disclaimer about the fact it > was a MS-Access database -- then I believe the court would find the > "reasonable person" in this case would consider it to be clearly > indicated. > > Where the exact line is between those two are, I'm not sure -- and I > don't think anyone on this list can give you a definitive answer to it > either. >
But isn't it the case that you only need to be able to determine of the content your viewing, what is OGC. So wouldn't it be the case that to have a claim you would have to be able to display the overall content and then show that you cannot seperate what is ogc from non ogc?? Silly example to illustrate: IE I have a book with OGC in it, unless I open the book I have no way of seperating the OGC from non OGC. It would be implied that I have to be able to read the overall content in order to seperate what is not OGC and what is. Thus if someone stores ogc in an access db with non ogc stuff as well. I would imagine that like the book you have to open the db and view contents, then if once you have done that it is not clear what is OGC and what isn't the material would be in violation of the OGL. If however the db is used by a front end to provide access to the OGC content stored within then it would be the responsibility of the front end to clearly indicate what is and what isn't OGC when the content is displayed. I think the problem is the OGL is designed from a printed point of view, where it is assumed that anyone buying the product is capable of reading it, and once they can read it they have to be able to determine what is and isn't OGC. In the end its going to take a court case to determine what is considered reasonable or not. If I were going to do any of the above though I would do my best to use tools that you can ship with the product to allow users to clearly identify what is and isn't ogc.... But in addition to that a tool would not satisy the OGL if the user is able to open the access db and read the contents because it is at that point where they view the material that they need to be able to ID the OGC. So adding a field to the DB to say OGC Y or N would settle that IMHO. Gary. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
