On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, RealmsCrafters wrote:
> [Originally posted to email by mistake. Sorry Alec.]
>
> >>>>
> ------Original Message------
> From: "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 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. <<<<
>
> I'm sorry Alec, but I find this statement rather confusing. You are
> assuming that source code must be released with OGL software.
I don't know if that's what I'm assuming, since I'm not a programmer. By
source code I meant the software program itself must use _identified_ OGC.
You can't use OGC in the program which is not identified and then simply
include a separate listing of all the OGC content used in the program.
The OGC content must be identified in the program so that anyone who can
and does examine the program (itself, not what it outputs) can tell what
is OGC.
> Is this really true? Since the OGL doesn't mention software at all why
> does everyone start with the assumption that the source code has to be
> released open?
You can't use OGC in anything without identifying the OGC. Therefore you
can't have a program that doesn't identify the OGC where it is used. I
don't think that necessarily means the source code must be open, but the
OGC in the source code must be clearly identified and therefore open.
One easy solution is to make everything OGC, and therefore open. OGC is
by definition open, and cannot be made closed. That's true even if the
OGC is used in source code. I have absolutely no idea how one would go
about making some parts of source code open and other parts not. Under
the OGL, you'd merely claim all the rest is PI, but most people seem to be
saying that this is not possible for writing programs.
> What if the software wasn't released with source and a PDF file was
> destributed with the binary that contained all of the OGC? What if all
> of the OGC were in text files in a subfolder? What if all of the OGC
> content was displayed in red?
As long as the OGC is clearly identified your are fine. In your example,
there is no OGC in the program used to create the PDF file, all the OGC is
in the actual PDF. In such a case I don't believe anyone is saying there
is any problem use the OGL as currently written however. Same is true of
a word processing, spreadsheet or database document. The program itself
contains no OGC. The file when it's read must identify all the OGC.
> If content providers today can distribute a PDF file without the
> original source that produced the PDF why would a software developer
> have to release his/her source for a binary executable?
Because the program used to make a PDF has no OGC in it. Any program that
doesn't contain OGC but somehow creates an output containing OGC has
absolutely no problems complying with the OGL as long as the output
clearly identifies all OGC. Of course I fail to see how this has anything
to do with the current discussion. All of the discussion has revolved
around the creation of programs which actually contain or generate OGC for
the end user. Someone would have to explain to me how a program can
create OGC without actually containing OGC. Claiming that a PDF is the
same as a program designed to create random monsters or other such
material containing OGC is like comparing apples to oranges.
alec
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
