Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1500206" data-attributes="member: 2013">See my post above.  Let me apply a couple of quick logic tests, here though, because I think it may be enlightening.  I think it is reasonable to assume:1.) Anything that a publisher declares as OGC is intended to be OGC.2.) Anything that is OGC is intended by the publisher to be used* it in any fashion by anyone provided there is OGL compliance.3.) Using OGC in the manner it was intended by the publisher is ethical.Now, given 1-3 above, let us suppose I put forth belief 4:4.) Person X putting an OGL-compliant posting of the entirety of the OGC declared as such by Publisher Y and contained in a work in one place for free on the web is NOT ethical (assume Person X is not misrepresenting it).Let me look now at point 4 in light of points 1-3..."Person X" is a subset of "anyone""declared as such by Publisher Y" is a subset of "anything a publisher declares as OGC""The OGC contained in a work" is a subset of "anything that is OGC.""putting it in one place" is a subset of "in any fashion""putting it on the web" is a subset of "in any fashion""putting it on the web for free" is a subset of "in any fashion"Thus, what we're looking at here is a use of that which was OGC (see Point 1) in the manner in which it was intended (see Point 2).  Point 3 tells us this is an ETHICAL use.  Yet Point 4 says that this is an UNETHICAL use. Clearly, one of our assumptions above must be incorrect.Point 2 assumes the OGL means what it says.  We can't throw it out, or the OGL falls apart.Point 3 seems self-evident.  This leaves us with Point 1 or Point 4 as the false point.  Thus are choices are:Point one is false.... it should be: Anything that a publisher declares as OGC is NOT NECESSARILY intended to be OGC.  If we assume this, we have to assume that the publisher is lying when he declares his OGC and therefore unethical.  ORWe can asume Point 4 is untrue and thus Person X putting an OGL-compliant posting of the entirety of the OGC declared as such by Publisher Y and contained in a work in one place for free on the web is ethical (assume Person X is not misrepresenting it).  Interestingly, one option forces the conclusion that both the Publisher and Re-User to be unethical, while the other option forces the conclusion that both ARE ethical (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to derive).  This actually lets us simplify things to:The re-user is unethical if and only if the publisher is unethical.The publisher is ethical if and only if the re-user is ethical.Interesting conclusion, no?  I'll leave it as a second exercise to the reader to decide which of the "if and only if" statements above they prefer to believe.--The Sigil*representing it in any fashion - e.g., as your own original work - is not necessarily ethical.</blockquote>

Verification