<< It's a legal construct, used by the court to determine things like whether or not something is "Clearly Indicated." From what I remember there is no clear definition of "what a reasonable person" _is_ because it is uniquely constructed for every case. >>
There is no one reasonable person. The reasonable person standard is different for every case, because each case has different details. It is based upon the idea of what would an average person (of average intelligence) do or think in a particular situation. For example, in a car accident, the reasonable person would be expected to obey the speed limit, drive slower in bad weather, and be aware of what is around the vehicle at all times. If the judge/jury is satisfied that the driver fullfilled those expectations, then the driver passed the reasonable person test, and would not be at liable. If the driver was speeding in bad weather with low visibility, the driver would fail that part of the reasonable person test, and be liable for damages. << 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. >> I disagree. The barriers that there may be between the product and the user are irrelevant to the determination of whether OGC is clearly identified, if the intended method of such identification does identify what is OGC. If I make an Access Database and make a statement within it that all values in fields A, C, D, and G are OGC, and make it available for download (or distribute through normal sales channels), just because someone doesn't have the software to read the database, doesn't mean I haven't clearly identified OGC. My first argument if it ever arose in court is that the intended customer is one who has access to the appropriate software to view the content. The court I would expect, would specify that the reasonable person in this situation would have access to Access (or other software that can read the file in question). Where the problem with clear identification comes WRT software is where you have a binary file, and it is not easy to identify the OGC within the binary, without statements such as "Bytes 100220 through 103300 are OGC", etc. << 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. >> Definately. The above is my own opinion and interpretation, and is not intended to be legal advice (unless you pay me, in which case I accept Cash, Cheque, Money Order or Paypal ;-). I've been on the list since April of 2000, and I'm currently in school (on the home stretch) of a Law Clerk/paralegal program. -- Scott Fantages Studios: http://www.fantages-studios.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
