From: "J. Michael Looney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> What I would like to do is this:
>
> 1) include a statement in the output of the software that the _output_ of
> this software is released as OGL (mayhap ever D20STL, depending)
> material.
That's a cool idea.
> 2) have a command line switch that causes the underlying tables and other
> "OGLish" stuff be kicked out in a form that could be used "by hand".
> (there by covering the OGL requirement that the stuff be available for
> others)
That's also very cool.
> 3) the software itself be released as GPL.
I certainly support that! In fact, if you GPL the code, you might just skip
#2, unless its an easy feature to implement.
> Is this a legal option?
Seems very reasonable to me.
> I have been reading the various licenses in question and I think it _is_
> a legal option, but given the "no other restrictions" clauses of both the
> GPL and the OGL I have some nagging questions.
The no restrictions clause in the GPL refers to changing the terms of use of
the >sourcecode<. The no restrictions clause in the OGL refers to changing
the terms of use of the >open game content<. I think they're mutually
compatible.
You can, for example, copyright the output of the gcc compilers, or the text
you write with emacs; clearly the GPL envisions a separate and different set
of rights for output of programs as opposed to sourcecode of programs...
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
