Ryan,
Before I request further clarification let me state that I'm not trying
to be difficult, nor am I trying to push the GFDL onto anyone. Since
it's a complete and working license I find it an expedient tool useful
for better understanding the intent of any license or licenses that the
OGF may wish to create. (Also, addressing Brad's reply, I'm not looking
for differences, necessarily; I've read both the OGL draft and the
GFDL. I'm trying to get a better grasp on the intent of the proposed
OGL.)
There were actually four objections stated to the GFDL, the fourth
referring to the viral nature of the GFDL:
As per #1, the GFDL is indeed complex. I understand a desire for a
simple license.
I understand that objection #2 refers to section 11, "Use of Contributor
Credits," in the draft OGL and the absense of a corresponding clause in
the GFDL. Is this correct?
I don't understand the third objection pertaining to larger works. The
GFDL addresses combining documents, collections of documents, and
aggregation with independent works (in which individual copyrights can
be retained for works not restricted by the GFDL) in sections 5, 6, and
7 respectively. I assume there's something about this objection I don't
understand. Could you clarify this?
Finally, the fourth (unnumbered) objection isn't quite clear. You
reference the viral nature of the GFDL (which in itself doesn't seem to
be a problem?) and state that a distinction exists between the "game"
and the intellectual property. You imply that a separation of the game
and IP is important, but I don't quite follow how these are or can be
distinguished in any given license. I think you lost me when you wrote
of the "game." Are you referring to one or more processes that might be
patented?
Thanks for your patience.
Tom
"Ryan S. Dancey" wrote:
>
> From: "Tom Phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > What aspects of it are unacceptable to the Open Gaming Foundation
>
> 1. It is far too complex.
>
> 2. It does not address the issue of the use of contributor's names
>
> 3 It does not allow for the creation of a "larger work" where one set of
> copyrights is maintained under separate ownership, and a second set of
> copyrights are maintained using the License.
>
> Because it is based on the GPL, which is 100% viral (you cannot release a
> program which is partly proprietary and partly GPL'd), it cannot be used
> effectively in our industry. The value of the "game" is often the least
> valuable portion of a gaming product - the value of the "IP" is often the
> most valuable portion. Without providing for this separation, the concept
> of Open Gaming would never work.
>
> Ryan
>
> -------------
> For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
