On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Max Skibinsky wrote:
> Alec, correct me if I'm wrong - but why it should be one way or the
> other? I recall there is standard legal phrase "including but not
> limited to". If we simply add to current clause about clear
> identification something like: "Textual material can be identified as
> OGC by any methods, including but not limited to the following:...<3
> methods>...Computer files and digital formats can be identified as OGC
> by any methods, including but not limited to the following:...<3
> methods>...".That will add 10 strings of text to the license at best.
Notice that in order to use "including but not limited to" it's necessary
to supply a definition that you are then supplying examples of. So it
becomes necessary to define "clear indication" - which you did by saying
"any methods"; a definition which really isn't acceptable. And even if an
acceptable definition of clear indication could be written, the examples
provided become the de facto methods of indication allowed and any
deviation is then judged against those listed methods rather than just a
reasonable person standard.
> In summary we had 3 statements from Ryan in past few days:
> 1) OGL is fine and don't need to be changed any time soon
> 2) There is no way to "cleary identify" binary/digital file as OGC
> 3) OGF objective is to promote the freedom to copy, modify and distribute
> game rules and material that use those rules for benefit of community.
>
> By using simple formal logic its easy to prove that only 2 statements
> from this list can be true at same time. ( Ryan stated they all are
> currently true. )
Those of course are not 3 statements by Ryan but your interpretation of
his statements. But I'll leave it to him to address if he wishes.
> Of course i hope to collect more data in our "d20-software" mini-poll
> ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ur_lord/surveys?id=10072101 ) but even
> now results are interesting.36.7% of respondents are actively engaged
> in d20 software development. Totally 63.6% of respondents depend on
> using software tools (meaning - binary formats) as much as they depend
> on books. Yet in same time, OGL is ill-suited to distribute computer
> formats, may be its even impossible. Therefore OGL as it is now can
> serve only 36.4% percent of community or less. It serves interests of
> minority at the expense of majority.
This is completely inaccurate interpretation of statistics. Not to
mention that any self-selected online polling is essentially worthless to
begin with. You're claiming that OGL doesn't serve people who use use
computer software as much as they use books -- indicating they all use
books. Therefore they are all (100%) being served by the OGL. The best
claim you can make is the 36.7% (those interested in developing D20
software) currently cannot figure out how to abide by the OGL for the
projects they are working on.
And there is any easy solution for anyone using OGC in any computer
program -- making the entire thing OGC. Obviously not a perfect solution,
but it illustrates that the argument that the OGL & OGC cannot be used at
all to be mistaken. If all the text is OGC you don't need to figure out a
way to identify OGC. Of course you now have the issue that you've
released the computer program itself under the OGL. I don't think this
would be a problem for anyone also using an open-source license but
obviously if you were trying to maintain a proprietary interest in the
program it would be a problem.
There still exists the big issue of making all OGC both available and
clearly identified. Programs that use OGC beneath the surface face the
problem that the OGL requires that OGC be available for others to use. I
don't have any ideas on how to solve this issue but there probably is one.
Perhaps the separate folder idea works here, but that still leaves the
other problem. The fact that OGC must be clearly identified everywhere it
appears means that having a separate place where all OGC is collected is
not sufficient. The OGL doesn't permit someone to publish a book where
the OGC is only identified by collecting the OGC from the main text and
putting it in appendix. OGC must be clearly identified everywhere it
appears. The same rules apply to software applications as apply to
published text. So OGC must be identified within the program
itself. There simply is no way around this, no do I see any reason there
should be since it is the only way of guaranteeing OGC remains OGC.
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
