On Thu, 25 May 2000, Brad Thompson wrote:
> The definition of 'complete source' is at the heart of my opposition to the
I understand your opposition to releasing the source code
to your efforts and I think I have also expressed the same
sentiment. I do not feel the definition of "complete source"
or "human-readable" is all that important at this time.
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.
> I don't think that's actually the intent. I think the intent is to keep an
> author from using OGL material in software and 'hiding' it away in the code.
[snip]
> What I am suggesting is "I implemented the SRD exactly. Here is a copy of
> it." Either paper, PDF, carved in stone, or whatever. The OGL doesn't
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.
> care, how you distribute a document, so neither should it care with
> software, so long as others can use the Open Content (an not the software)
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.
> for their own purposes. The OGL shouldn't be an Open Software license, it
> should stick to gaming.
I too would prefer the OGL stick to gaming but right now
we are contemplating a clause that goes:
"If ... includes software ... must ... "
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.
I guess a lot can be solved if we just ask Ryan whether he
still feels that a clause regarding software is necessary.
If yes, does he feel including a copy of the OGL'd content
with the software is sufficient.
Regards,
--Kal
