> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Kletch > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 8:07 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] OGC designations > > So there is no OGC that is PI. You should have: > > 1. Non-OGC > 2. Non-OGC that is PI > 3. OGC
Actually, Alec has posted many an in-depth analysis that says just the opposite; and for the first time, I just noticed Clark supporting him on it. When the law professor and the lawyer agree on a matter of law, I'm not going to disagree. If I recall Alec's argument correctly, it goes like this: 1. In the beginning, there was copyrighted material. Copyright law defines the rather limited rules under which you can reproduce or otherwise reuse this material. It also forbids the unlicensed creation of derivative works in general (while not necessarily clarifying what constitutes a derivative work). As a contrast to OGC, this material may be called non-OGC; but it's really just plain old copyrighted material. 2. Under the OGL, there is OGC: a new variety of copyrighted material which is licensed for general reuse under the terms of the OGL. In a mixed work (a work consisting of OGC and non-OGC), the OGL only licenses the OGC, and thus has no bearing on the non-OGC. That non-OGC material continues to be protected only by standard copyright law, and may be licensed in various ways that do not relate to the OGL. 3. Under the OGL, there is also PI: a designation for material which is NOT licensed for reuse, even if it occurs within text that is clearly identified as OGC. Now here, as I understand it, is the crux of Alec's argument. If the material is non-OGC, the OGL does not apply to it. Therefore, the designation of PI has no meaning within non-OGC, only within OGC. (In fact, Alec has argued that declaring a term as PI is a pointless, meaningless exercise if that term never appears within OGC.) And therefore, PI is NOT non-OGC; rather, it is OGC which happens NOT to be licensed for reuse under the OGL (though it may be licensed for reuse under other terms, as sounds like a common practice for those who use a lot of PI). The distinction seems rather esoteric to me; but Alec made a point of explaining it at length, and I really tried to grasp the argument. I hope I've done justice to the argument here. Martin L. Shoemaker Martin L. Shoemaker Consulting, Software Design and UML Training [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.MartinLShoemaker.com http://www.UMLBootCamp.com _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
