Simple... form two corporations, let one write the software, let the other
one write the content for the OGL code..
Then let the lawyers fiddle around and mess the whole thing up..
"yawn" I have FUZION stuff to write.... the FUZION license, although
massively disorganized is starting to look better and better...
drop by www.thefuze.net if you want to see it.
Jared Nielsen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Walter
> Christensen
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:48 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Open_Gaming] Everybody Wins (was: Proposed Change to License)
>
>
> From: Kal Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> From: Brad Thompson
> >>The definition of 'complete source' is at the heart of my
> >>opposition to the
>
> From: Kal Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >I understand your opposition to releasing the source code
> >to your efforts...
>
> >I believe the fundamental question is "should we require
> >software producers to contribute some of their effort
> >because they used OGL content?" I have already pointed out
> >that print producers are not required to contribute to the
> >community for using OGL content.
>
> But they *are* required to contribute; they contribute any OGL work they
> produce.
>
> From: Kal Lin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >That is what I understood you were suggesting. I do not see
> >how giving the original author a copy of the original material
> >helps the author with respect to some software "hiding" his/her
> >OGL content. I also do not see how this feeds anything back to
> >the joint development effort which was why Ryan introduced the
> >proposal in the first place.
>
> Assumption:
> A software developer develops software based on OGL material.
> The OGL does
> not address software issues.
>
> Possible Result:
> All OGL material is buried in closed software source, and is
> therefore not
> available to the OGL community.
>
> Problem:
> This does not contribute to the OGL community.
>
> Solution:
> Amend the OGL to require a human-readable version of all OGL work the
> software is based on.
>
> Benefits:
> Allows software developers to produce software they maintain control of
> while still benefiting the OGL community through open OGL modifications.
>
> Example:
> Let's say you produce a MUD engine that uses the d20SRD as its
> base with no
> modifications. In this case you would produce a document containing just
> the d20SRD, since that is the entirety of the OGL work you used.
> If you had
> used the d20SRD and added a new class, then you would produce a document
> that contained the d20SRD as well as a write-up of the new class.
>
> Notes:
> I'm not sure that this is what Brad is proposing, though this is
> what I read
> into his proposal. Regardless, I think this satisfies the spirit
> of the OGL
> while still allowing software developers control of their code.
>
> Comments? Requests for clarification?
>
> Walter
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> -------------
> For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
