> Kal Lin
>
> I do not use VB or Delphi but I believe one can separate their
> "source code" from the proprietary runtime libraries. GPL'd
> .pas (or whatever the extension is) files is what people want
> to see. People can buy VB or Delphi themselves, if they want
> to change your source and compile it. Proprietary libraries
> can and often are used to develop GPL'd programs. A common
> example is GPL'd applications that use Motif (which is no
> where close to GPL even after the recent announcements).
You didn't read all of my comments. The trouble is not with the GPL itself,
but rather how it interacted with the proposed change to the OGL. The
proposed change required that "the complete
source code of that software must be licensed using the GNU General Public
License (GPL)". There is no exception for precompiled libraries which
linked into the program (either statically or dynamically). Although it
would be easy to exclude runtime environments (such as a Java Virtual
Machine) as separate programs, it would be very difficult to show that the
source code of a DLL or OCX was not part of the 'complete source code of
that software'.
> >"If the publication you are distributing includes software that contains
> >Open Game Content, a complete copy of all such Open Content must be
> >distributed with that software in a separate, human-readable form."
>
> 1) A software producer could say, "I implemented the SRD
> exactly. Here is my binary and a print out of the SRD."
> Instead of "human-readable", I think people want the
> "machine-readable source code" as used in the GPL.
Why the Open Gaming content should be machine-readable if it is part of
software, but not machine-readable if it isn't? Lets keep it simple - Open
Content is Open Content, and should be treated the same way regardless of
whether or not it gets used in a program. If you want a machine-readable
clause for all Open Gaming Content, you're going to be pretty hard on paper
publishers.
> 2) A software producer could say, "Here is my SRD.java
> but you can't use it." You should specify what license
> applies to the "readable" stuff that must be distributed
> with the software.
Are we advocating Open Gaming or Open Software? I think Open Software is a
great idea, but let's keep our focus where it belongs. If you force
developers to use the GPL, you'll be left with Hasbro being the only source
of commercial-grade D20 software. The geek density in gaming is quite high,
but it is nothing like the geek density in the Unix world, which is pretty
much the only environment where Open Software is a significant market force.
There simply aren't enough top-level programmers who are also into Open
Gaming to produce the critical mass necessary for Open Software to thrive.
Allow the commercial aspect, and you can focus on promoting Open Gaming,
which is what I'm interested in most of all.
> 3) A software producer could choose not to distribute
> anything but rather sell you time on their server which
> runs a variety of software or sell you an account for
> their online gaming service.
Stallman's comment elucidates a very valid point, but it is only relevant to
programs that run exclusively on the server. Our issue is not with the
programs but the data they exchange with the client. If that data contains
Open Gaming Content, then the program (and thus the operator) is
distributing Open Gaming Content, and must comply with all of the terms of
the OGL, including distributing a copy of the license.
> Now into gripe mode:
>
> 1) While I understand the motivation to require software
> producers to contribute back to the Open Game Content,
> it seems like software producers are being short changed
> when compared to their printed matter counterparts. The
> printed matter guys are not required to release "a big
> chunk of their effort" for anyone else to reuse. They can
> use the SRD verbatim and keep everything else proprietary.
> The software guys, on the other hand, have to release code
> the represents "a big chunk of their effort." In particular,
> the software guys have to worry about someone else coming
> along and releasing a competitive product with the help of
> some code that took them 8 months to produce.
I agree completely. I suggested an alternative language which would
alleviate this problem.
> 2) How about leading by example? Release some code under
> the GPL before asking others to release code under the GPL.
> While I respect and appreciate the effort that went into
> the content that will be released under the OGL, that is a
> very different animal than code.
Nice idea. It'll never happen. I'm guessing that the Demo Character
Generator is going to represent several hundred thousand dollars of effort
on Fluid's part. Giving it away is simply not an option. The only reason
they are giving the d20 away is to sell more PHBs. How will giving the
Character Generator away sell more products for WotC?
> 3) One lesson from the Quake GPL is that releasing source
> for a game is helping people to write cheats for the game.
It's important to remember, but irrelevant to the license itself.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
