All,
I'll de-lurk here for a moment to toss my two cents in on the
who OGL/GPL debate.
Like Ryan I agree that having too many licences available can
split the 'open/free' community. I don't think that we've seen that
happen in the Opensource community yet. There are multiple
licences out there for various reasons. I know I've released
software under the GPL, and the Artistic License, and if I felt it was
in the best interest of my audience and software, I'd release furure
developments under the BSD licence or Mozilla. There are different
licenceses because there are different goals for different software
releases.
I think that having a goal oriented license is what's missing in
this debate. The OGL is a step forward, but if we decide that any
software related to OGL materials -must- be GPL'd then that's a
step backwards. I think that there needs to be an open license for
that kind of software, but one that recognises the goals of the
gaming industry (which, lets admit, are different from the software
industry). Software for OGL products are likely utility programs
and 'games' rather than applications and operating systems and
business logic.
I think the OGL needs a 'sister' license for software written
which relates to OGL materials. This doesn't have to be difficult.
You like the GPL, modify it to work with the OGL. Same with the
BSD licence, or the Artistic Licence.
Now, back to lurking.
Sean Campbell
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
