> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Marty Minick > Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 4:05 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project > > > > Well, with the two examples I stated, the OGC is > effectively transparent. > > In a MUD, while it is text-based, all the actual OGC > is behind the scenes. Perhaps the closest to actually > showing OGC is if some ability allows you to see the > number of hitpoints the elf you're fighting has. > -note: certainly, in this case, we could color-code > the name of OGC and non-OGC "monsters" in the game, as > well as spell effects and such.
I missed the MUD aspect. You're right: much of your OGC-derived work is never distributed. What IS distributed -- your hit points example -- can be indicated in a number of ways. This is an example where a tool that produces and distributes OGC need not itself be OGC IF the tool is never distributed. I have a set of Excel spreadsheet templates for generating PCS and NPCs, running combat, etc. (I also tied them into a Tablet PC mapping tool I wrote, so I can move pieces around on the map and navigate from the map to the spreadsheets.) Those need not be covered under the OGC, because I've never given copies to anyone. But if I print out a character sheet and post it on my Web site, I'll need to license, clearly indicate, etc., etc., etc. > In a 3-D First person game, the OGC is even less > apparent. the OGC effectively, never appears. Here, I think you're wrong IF you give or sell copies of the game in any way. The game is a derivative work, and must comply with the licenses if distributed, whether the OGC is apparent or not. But again, if the game is hosted on your site and only the results are distributed, then only the results need to be licensed. > In both cases, while the source is usually freely > available, and in the case of a Quake Mod, almost > always distributed with the mod itself(under the GPL), > the source for these is, to the average person likely > to be wanting to use the OGC, illegible (ie: requires > special prgramming knowledge to read) It appears to be Wizards' position that human-readable source is acceptable for distribution, even though it does require special skills to read. Of course, if you obfuscate the code to the point of unintelligibility, they might change their view. Again, I find this inconsistent. But they appear to be consistent in their inconsistency: compiled binaries bad, human-readable anything good, and humans who know how to read or extract binaries aren't reasonable persons. > Thus, the logical next step, an external, human > readable, document containing all the OGC used to > create the program. And as long as that's the ONLY place the OGC appears -- well, that and human-readable source code -- Wizards seems to be happy with it. That's the PCGen approach. But it requires that your code use the same human-readable files to run. You can't compile any OGC into binaries: no creature names, no spell names, and other obvious examples; but also no rules. Want to include a function that rolls hit points? Then the die formula you use has to be in the OGC file. For that matter, the very fact that a character has hit points to be rolled has to be in the OGC files. You can't have a class Character in the code that includes a HitPoints field. Instead, you have to have a "reader" class in the code that reads structure definitions from the OGC file and then creates those structures in the code. > To illustrate this example, Let's say someone wants to > make a sourcebook for 3.5e based off my Quake Mod. The > quote you provided implies that he would have to sort > work his way through my Mod, at each point with a > note-pad in hand, and jot things down. > > OR, he could load up Adobe reader, and use exactly > what he wants from the game, rather than having to > figure out things. Oh, for YOUR OGC -- your NON-DERIVATIVE OGC -- follow whatever rules you want. If you have new characters, new magic items, and new rules that aren't derivative of OGC you licensed from someone else, and you want to license those under the OGL, you're free to indicate those when and how you wish. One big PDF file is just fine. But if anywhere in your source there appears anyone else's OGC, or anything derived from anyone else's OGC, then your source has to be human readable and licensed under the OGL. Don't blame me. I wish it wasn't like that. But that appears to be how Wizards views it. Martin L. Shoemaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.TabletUML.com -- The UML tool you don't have to learn! _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
