woodelf wrote:
Or, what if i believe it is impossible to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the license? Then what?
[Which, btw, is the stance i'm slowing moving towards through these discussions: that is, that the license does *not* embody the spirit of open-content development, so, if the letter of the license accurately matches the intent of the drafters, then that intent wasn't open-content development, despite their claims. Though, if Ryan's explanation of the nature of PI (essentially the "white out" interpretation) is correct, that shifts my stance back towards the spirit being open-content.]
The OGL is effectivly non-compulsory for new material. It's almost more BSD-like than GPL-like.
We, and open-content, can live with this. :)
I'm not referring to its viral, semi-viral, or whatever-you-want-to-call-it nature. I'm referring to things like no requirement to make the OGC easily available in an editable format, or the actual hostility of the license to proper source tracking. *Those*, plus the PI bits, are the parts that i think undermine the goal of open-content development.
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
The past tempts us, the present confuses us, and the future frightens us ...and our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between. -- Emperor Turhan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
