Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8905757" data-attributes="member: 6795602">New stuff can be added to the OGC category at any time = expandable.I think you just aren’t thinking far enough ahead.Because of section 8 WOTC had to clearly identify the OGC from SRD 5.1.&nbsp; All other contributors do as well. Because of section 8 there is no question about what specific element is OGC and what isn’t. To me that’s defining OGC in the most clear terms possible.There is also section 1(d) if you want a more formal definition. Though much less useful for practical considerations.Clearly the same.I agree. Not sure I see any relevance but I agree.Which IMO is a much less plausible argument than deauthorization.The scope of the license and that clause is more local.&nbsp; The specific implementation mandates you include the contributors copyrights. If it’s as you say then you would need to constantly update your list. But you do not. Thus, it’s local. But in practical terms it doesn’t matter since you would be able to take OGC licensed by Company A as contributor and more licensed by company B as contributor and use them together in your product C.&nbsp; OGC can be localized to a specific license and still accomplish everything desired.IMO it’s a worse argument than deauthorization. Which is where we started.I do think the point you bring forth is Important as most of us up till now have treated any instance of OGL as licensing all things in the OGC category and that’s probably not the case. Practically it doesn’t really matter as far as I can tell though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8905757, member: 6795602"] New stuff can be added to the OGC category at any time = expandable. I think you just aren’t thinking far enough ahead. Because of section 8 WOTC had to clearly identify the OGC from SRD 5.1. All other contributors do as well. Because of section 8 there is no question about what specific element is OGC and what isn’t. To me that’s defining OGC in the most clear terms possible. There is also section 1(d) if you want a more formal definition. Though much less useful for practical considerations. Clearly the same. I agree. Not sure I see any relevance but I agree. Which IMO is a much less plausible argument than deauthorization. The scope of the license and that clause is more local. The specific implementation mandates you include the contributors copyrights. If it’s as you say then you would need to constantly update your list. But you do not. Thus, it’s local. But in practical terms it doesn’t matter since you would be able to take OGC licensed by Company A as contributor and more licensed by company B as contributor and use them together in your product C. OGC can be localized to a specific license and still accomplish everything desired. IMO it’s a worse argument than deauthorization. Which is where we started. I do think the point you bring forth is Important as most of us up till now have treated any instance of OGL as licensing all things in the OGC category and that’s probably not the case. Practically it doesn’t really matter as far as I can tell though. [/QUOTE]

Verification