On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, Max Skibinsky wrote:
> > 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.
The OGF (actually Wizards since they are the authors of the OGL) has no
desire to create a very lengthy and legalistic license. What you are
essentially asking for (a license that completely spells out every single
things) is exactly the type of legalistic document that this list
complained about for over a year. Certainly that could be one way to fix
the problem, but even then it's not clear how well that would work. For
one thing, people are discussing a wide variety of different types of
computer applications here and it doesn't appear there is one solution
that is likely to cover all of them.
> > > 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.
I compared and I find your short versions to be very inaccurate
characterizations of what Ryan said. The first statement doesn't say the
OGL is fine or doesn't need to be changed -- it simply says that the
problems being discussed cannot be solved until some real (rather than the
hypothetical) work has been done. The second doesn't say that there is no
way to clearly identify OGC in a binary file, it says that if OGC cannot
be clearly identified such a binary file would violate the OGL.
In any case, as someone who occassionally teaches formal logic, please
show me that all three (of your version of the statements - you'll never
be able to do it with Ryan's) cannot true at the same time. Based on just
the three statements, it cannot be done obviously since there is no
connection between statement 2 and either 1 or 3 without adding in other
statements.
> 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."
SNIP on-line poll discussion
> > 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.
Actually no one has satisfactorily (to me, a non-programmer) shown that it
isn't possible. Unless someone out there is actually writing programs in
1s & 0s, the program is written in a language. In order to comply with
the OGL, anytime OGC appears it must be clearly identified. If there is
no way to clearly identify OGC in some language, I guess you really can't
use OGC. And I really don't feel too bad about that, since if you are
using OGC your are taking someone else's work and you should be required
to provide everyone with the same rights to the work that you are
benefitting from (that whole open source idea) so the OGC must be clearly
identified.
> > 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 ).
And here we get back to the point of it being the responsibility of those
who wish to use OGC in this manner to find a way to comply with the
license. No one told the print publishers exactly how to clearly identify
the OGC in the products they produced. They all seem to have figured out
ways to do it however. Suggestions were offered, but suggestions have
been offered to programmers as well. Unfortunately it's true that the
issues appears to be more problematict for programmers. But the main
answer from some seems to be that software programs should not have to
follow the rules of the OGL but should have separate rules created for
them which are far less onerous than the rules everyone else is operating
under (i.e. the "put all OGC in a separate folder" concept).
As most on the list know, I'm one of the three or four who've acknowledged
possessing a law degree. So I mostly chime in when people start
discussing legal issues, often, as was true here, in such a way that
mischaracterizes what the legal solution is. There is not a simple line
or two that can be added to the OGL to make the use of OGC in computer
applications easily available. I agree that it is unfortunate that there
isn't but that's the truth of the matter. It's also true that the OGL
wasn't written to explicitly deal with software applications. Computer
applications are ancillary to the main focus of the OGL which is to
provide a copyleft method of releasing game material. The OGL does this,
and even does it for computer applications which abide by its terms.
I've also stated that it's not entirely clear what constitutes clear
identification of OGC in a computer application. And it won't be until
someone writes an application and releases it under the OGL and someone
elses challenges them in a court. It's fairly clear that whenever OGC
appears it must be identified, so the separate folder idea is out since
when someone is looking at the source code they must be able to identify
the OGC. Does that mean that someone using the application must be able
to see all the OGC (i.e. even that which is operating below the surface)
who knows? If I, a non-programmer, can clearly identify all the OGC that
I see, and if someone else who actually bothered to look at the
programming can identify all the OGC in the code that quite likely could
be sufficient. But until it's actually decided in court, we won't know
for certain. Ryan almost always takes a conservative position, probably
because he doesn't want anyone to be hurt by doing something and then be
shut down and because he doesn't want the entire open gaming concept to be
destroyed by mistakes made by others.
As for Brad's point about using other people's progamming tools and/or
programming licenses, once again I don't really see that as being
something wrong with the OGL. You could just as easily place all the
blame for this situation on the other side (MS, GPL, whatever). I do
understand that this is a fairly serious problem for many people wanting
to make applications that aid in running TRPGs, since most of these are
built on already existing tools rather than built from scratch. That
means it's not within the applications writer's power to release the
entire thing as OGC. So this is the place where those trying to write
such applications need to figure out ways of clearly identifying the OGC.
If it can't be done, that's not so much a problem with the OGL but with
the tools. Same as with any langauge or media that does not permit clear
identification of OGC.
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
