> Ryan S. Dancey > > my opinion is that at > this time, the best way to use the OGL with a computer and/or on-line > game is to license the source code of that game under an Open Source > license (per the Open Source Initiative's Definition of Open Source at > www.opensource.org) as well as the OGL.
This is really beside the point. The OGL itself does a fine job as an Open Source license, so you could forego any other license and be just fine. But you are kidding yourself if you think this is any kind of a solution. It is a bit like saying - "no, you can't have a car, but you can have all of the plans and parts to make a car. You'll have to have your own tools, and a place to build it, but at least the parts are clearly marked. Please have a nice day." For a less tongue-in-cheek example we could look at Linux. Linux is popular because it is powerful and relatively easy to use. A large part of this is the fact that it is distributed in binary packages. How popular do you think it would be if you had to compile the source code first? Most people wouldn't have heard of it. Your "solution" relegates software based on OGC right where it was before the OGL came along - the same kind of legality as Napster, because NOBODY is going to distribute just the source code, so everybody will be in violation, and then the license hasn't solved anything for any of those users. In short, it is no solution at all. Given your adamant position on this issue, I can only conclude that this is the way Hasbro/Wizards wants it. It's a shame they can't just come out and say so. At least then it wouldn't get people's hopes up. -Brad _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
