I'm still disagreeing with this - the definitions define what Open
Content are, but they do not seem to stop you from adding closed
content. Unlike the various open software licenses, which specifically
do force you to make everything open. My take on it is this:
1) If you use open content, you cannot "close" it and claim it as yours.
(a no-brainer for most people, but the lawful-evil among us have done
such things in the past)
2) If you modify open content, then it is a derivitave work, and must
be open also.
3) If you add new content, it is neither PI nor open content, and
does not fall under the terms of this agreement. You are of course
able to declare it open,
Please notice all the "If you are contributing..." in the text. This
clearly shows you do not have to contribute all your content. Indeed,
in the case of licensed things you may not be able to contribute them.
as evidenced by number 5.
#8 clearly shows this as well. Far from being redundant bookkeeping,
it is a very important clause that shows you do not have to make
everything open.
There seems to be a set of people who want to turn the OGL into a
game version of the GPL, and force us to relinquish everything if
we dare to use anything open -- sort of a forced public-domain.
However, the text just does not say this. I'm not wanting to dredge
up the old "users are losers" thread, but it's more important for
people to use the open content, whether or not they contribute,
then it is to force people to contribute.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of kevin kenan
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 8:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] Marking PI and OGC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> So EVERYTHING in your OGL-covered work that isn't Product Identity is Open
> Gaming Content.
What I've finally realized is that the definitions in section 1 have changed
the license more drastically then I thought. It used to be that OGC was
defined purely by what was in the shaded box (or however you decided to mark
it). In those proud days, section 8 was a critical piece of the license. Now
that the definitions of OGC and PI are in place, section 8's requirement is
mere bookkeeping. If the section was removed, the license would survive just
fine.
We must analyze each sentence according to the definitions of OGC and PI as
given in section 1. If the material in that sentence can be considered PI
and we want it to be PI then we must mark that sentence as PI. Otherwise we
must mark the sentence as OGC.
-kenan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
