On Sun, 21 May 2000, Brad Thompson wrote:
> source code of a DLL or OCX was not part of the 'complete source code of
> that software'.
I think we just have different definitions of "complete source."
I consider complete source to be everything you produced to make
the software. If you linked into a library that someone else
produced then you have no control over releasing that code. That
someone could license that library however they feel like (of
course the library maker might have OGL restrictions him/herself).
Anyways, this is a technical issue that can be clarified with
the right definition at the top of the license.
> 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.
My understanding was that people wanted to see the source code
of software that is based on OGL content so the community can
further develop it. That's why I suggested machine-readable
source code. But there is another technical issue here. Someone
can produce a product that is software only and distribute via
the Internet. There is no easy way to give them human-readable
printed matter. There is an easy way to give them machine-readable
PDF, PS or TXT files.
Before we get bogged down in details, what is it we really want?
Ryan wrote,
>To handle the problem of people using Open Game Content to produce closed
>game software - taking all the fruits of the Open Gaming environment and
>putting them in a format that can't feed back into the joint development
>effort.
and Brad wrote,
>You write a killer module, and spread it around the net under OGL. I
turn
>it into a game and it becomes the next Baldur's Gate. You get nothing
>except a mention in the credits. More importantly, you no longer have
>access to your own material - it is buried in the source code of the
work,
>which is owned by someone else. The only way around this would be to
>require the source material to be included with every copy of the binary
>code.
I don't see how including a copy of the printed module is going to
help anyone. If anything people can get the game binary AND the
printed module from the software house. Also, getting the printed
module along with the binary doesn't "feed back into the joint
development effort." We already have the printed module under the OGL.
If someone produces a complete software implementation of the SRD
(granted a daunting task), can they satisfy the requirement
>"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."
by saying, "I implemented the SRD exactly. Here is a print out of
the SRD."
Regards,
--Kal
