> > or so. So far all we got is a) "Release it as Open Source". > > b) "Don't use OGL for software", c) .....silence, as > > communications are ignored. > I think that's a terribly unfair and inaccurate portrayal. ... > Frankly, I find the whole tone of your message hostile. I fail to see > why the discussion took this turn for the worse.
In turn, I find your portrayal of "software guys" equally unfair and inaccurate. My sincere apologies if the tone of my message was inappropriate. However on my part I do feel some enmity toward software development in you recent and not so recent postings. I fail to understand, why software developers are treated with different standard. Any 3rd party - say SSS - can and do "use Open Game Content to create a non-free books that they can sell you along with a license that restricts your rights to copy, modify and distribute that books" - which is of course absolutely normal. Yet the tone of your last message seems to imply that software companies doing the same thing are shady types, who are grabbing something free and open, then appropriating & closing it to resell for profit. Nothing is farther from the truth and such statements simply create unfavorable image of software community. All software teams I know of are working on keeping everything coming from OGC in *very* open form, and even opening more of their engines, formats and APIs to make it easier for end users to use OGC, redistribute or modify it. The problem is not with software guys, the problem is with the license which somehow ended up with enough legal loopholes to blast even best-intended and open-content software as "not clearly identified". If software is not Open Source, doesn't mean its not Open Content. For example, I'm 101% sure that even closed-code application which derive all OGC data from clearly identified folder would be just as helpful to end user as book which identify OGC sections by some formula on first page. In fact it will be even more helpful since users may change files & data in such folder - thus naturally giving them the easy means to use, modify and redistribute OGC. If current license wording makes this very clear, and very easy to use mechanism for identifying and keeping OGC in software illegal - then its not truly open license, since its blocks innovative software. BTW statements like "software guys have not shown an interest in doing so [clearly identify OGC] in their unique medium" are also dubious at best. IMHO software guys are trying their best all the time in this list how to find better ways to comply with OGL. Bottom line is there were a lot of negative comments on virtually any suggestion how to identify OGC in software and virtually no constructive suggestions how to overcome these difficulties. All this combined (plus email silence) creates the impression that creation of new Open Gaming Content software is unwelcome and discouraged by OGF. Of course this is just my personall impression, which could be wrong. - Max _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
