----- Original Message -----
From: "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] Attempting to fully understand the software issue.
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, RealmsCrafters wrote:
>
> > 3. I do believe all of the files released with a binary executable is
> > a work. A folder, text file, pdf file or some other method containing
> > all of the OGC used in and/or by the binary will statisfy the OGL. If
> > a printed module used came in two booklets. One is the actual
> > adventure and the second a complete OGC used in the first it would
> > statisfy the OGL as long as they are shipped together as one work.
> > Software is no different.
>
> No it would NOT! That's the whole point here, all the OGC in the
> adventure must be identified as OGC in the adventure. It doesn't matter
> if there's a separate book that just contains the OGC. Everywhere the OGC
> appears it must be identified as OGC. That's the only way a copyleft
> protection can function. What you've descrived completely violates the
> OGL. And I've said all along that software is no different, it must abide
> by the terms of the OGL just like print material.
I am not a lawyer but I understand the OGL a little differently:
"8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate
which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content"
Section 8 states that you must clearly indicate which portions are OGC. It doesn't
specify how you must clearly indicate. I proposed that a second list of OGC be
supplied with a document that contains the OGC. I don't see how this would not satisfy
section 8 of the OGL.
In this hypothetical, I am clearly stating the OGC in a separate document. I line
could even be added that says "The following paragraphs when found in Booklet A is
Open Game Content." I don't see how this fails to clearly indicate.
Section 8 does not say that you must clearly indicate "within" the work just "which
portions of the work".
>
> I've freely admitted that since I'm not a programmer I'm not going to
> judge the intricacies of programming. But the primary argument has been
> that the OGL prohibits making computer programs because programs cannot
> clearly identify OGC every where OGC is used so an exception should be for
> programming. This simply isn't going to work and maintain the principles
> of copyleft protection. People who want to make computer programs have to
> clearly identify OGC everywhere OGC appears just like people who write
> books or modules. How they do this is up to the programmers, but it does
> mean that whereever OGC is used it must be clearly identified.
>
It is not my position that "OGL prohibits making computer programs because programs
cannot clearly identify OGC every where OGC is used so an exception should be for
programming"
My position is that all files released with the software is a complete work.
Also I have a comment on copyleft. Copyleft, as far as I know has no legal definition.
To me copyleft is a movement and I am more concerned with the legal aspects of the OGL.
As for the rest of your comments in the above paragraph, I agree. OGC should be
clearly identified. Which just disagree on how that should be done.
Robert Kozak
www.RealmsCRafters.com
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
