> 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.
I will pass this avenue of discussion to someone more suited in legal matters.
However, personally,
i don't find argument "the law is still trying to work out many issue surrounding
computer programs
and copyrights" as reason why we should abandon trying to incorporate
computer-oriented section into
OGL. As Silicon Valley denizen i seen LOTS of legalese related to computer law, and i
don't seen
that it ever stopped manifolds of companies here to do purely computer-oriented
business. They
simply have desire to go ahead and solve this problem. OGF apparently does not.
> > 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.
No. If you read Ryan letters carefully you would find exactly this statements. I made
them short
just for brevity sake. Here are the full versions - compare with my simplifications.
May 30, From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1) "My opinion is that the problem is one only solvable with time and with
revisions to the license once we have some perspective on how the project is
progressing in the real world. Time has to pass at its own rate, and
there's essentially no chance that a revision to the license will be
undertaken any time in the foreseeable future."
2) "My opinion is that a distribution of Open Game Content in a binary file that
cannot be directly viewed in a human-readable format in some reasonably
simple and generally available way will violate the Open Game License,
because that Open Game Content will >not< be clearly identified. My advice
to you therefore is "don't do it".
3) "If the OGL .... it would still be sufficient to promote the freedom to
copy, modify and distribute game rules and material that use those rules,
thus it would fulfil the objective of the Open Gaming Foundation in
promoting that freedom."
> > 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
> 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
Same way as all people during blackout in California still are served by candles - and
therefore
have stable and unlimited source of light. Effectively OGL is same thing. It deals
perfectly with
candle making, but when it comes to *a little bit more progressive*
electricity/software - it can't
handle it, and we are asked in very poetic way to wait while "time has to pass at its
own rate".
While we burn candles.
The poll is trying to establish how many people depend on software at least as much as
they depend
on books. Therefore while OGL serves their purposes for first half of their of
interest (books), it
clearly hampers the other 50%. In summary OGL/D20STL currently deals "software
interests damage" to
63.6% of people, to whom this interest is either half or prevailing.
> 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.
Right. But since that 36.7% can't really release OGC/D20 software at the moment all
people down the
list are left without software they otherwise desire. Situation would be better if MT
would be
already released. But it's not. And it's delayed once more time.
> And there is any easy solution for anyone using OGC in any computer
> program -- making the entire thing OGC. Obviously not a perfect solution,
As others explained already explained even that isn't possible. It's easier for camel
to go through
eye of the needle, then to release working software under OGL/D20STL now.
> 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.
When you find it, please let me and others know. I personally will be really grateful
and definitely
would put credits to your name in our software. Until that time we can practice on
easier task
(needles and camels ).
- Max
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
