> Kal Lin
>
> 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.
They should be treated exactly like all other users of OGL material.
> 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.
'Original material' can mean two things. It can mean the material upon
which the software is based, and it can mean the source OGL material upon
which a derivation is made. You seem to be focusing on the former, while I
am mainly concerned with the latter. Regardless, we seem to agree that if
one creates software with OGL material, then third party user should still
be able to use that OGL material without having to deal with the software.
Obviously, giving the original author of the OGL material a human-readable
version of his own work is pointless, but for anyone other than the author
it is very useful.
> Anyone who wants access to the original content can get it
> freely and easily from various open content repositories
> (that will spring up). I can see how the original content
> may reach a few more people by your proposal but then so
> will a few more people bypass the original author's
> distribution method.
Such repositories are irrelevant to this discussion, as is the author's
intended method of distribution. The OGL allows anyone to distribute OGL
material in any way they see fit - the author's wished never enter into it.
The license doesn't care how you get your hands on OGL material. It only
cares that if you do, you do not place any additional restrictions on others
using it. Software is a special case, in that it places practical rather
than legal restrictions on access to the OGL material. Therefore, it
deserves special treatment. Even GPL source code is not enough, because it
obscures the OGL material from anyone who is not fluent in the chosen
language. It goes against the spirit of the license to use OGL material for
a particular purpose but prevent others from freely deriving from or
duplicating that OGL material. That is why I propose distribution of the
material upon which the software is based, not as an additional distribution
channel, but to comply with the spirit of the OGL.
> A really bad thing that can happen is some clause going in
> with different people holding different interpretations.
> There is a HUGE difference between Ryan's orginal desire
> of getting the "complete source" GPL'd and your suggestion
> of including a copy of the OGL'd content.
Indeed. He did mention that my suggestion would satisfy his intent, but I
don't think he has made any further comment on the subject. I'd give the
quote but I'm out of town right now and it's on my desktop machine.
-Brad
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
