> >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. > > > Not knowing the full details I can't be sure... but "it's all OGC" seems > clear enough to me.
Naturaly. However here is Ryan opinion on this matter: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan S. Dancey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 10:49 PM [..] > As far as I'm concerned, a generic file format that can be easily read by > any number of non-proprietary viewers (like ASCII text) is, in my opinion, > going to pass the "reasonable person" test so long as that file contains > clear instructions written in English that identify what is Open Game > Content. > > A non-human readable file format, or one requiring a limited license > proprietary reader as the only way to view its contents is not going to pass > that test, in my opinion. ----- My recollection of this old argument are far from perfect, however the lasting impression was that its very hard to "clearly identify" binary file as OGC - if such binary file don't have publicly available free human reader. For executables we at least have (very lame) option of distributing them as open source - what you going to do with source-less binary resources? Considering that most of files used in software are binary and some by their nature don't have readers (how would you read 3DS, PNG or DLL file as text?) - there is no reasonable way to declare binary files as OGC. The logical solution - keep such files in separate folder, and declare content of that folder OGC (like free redistributable engine, library, or resource collection ). This suggestion was shoot down by Ryan on the grounds that since theoretically files can be separated from the folder in even more theoretical future, this files no longer are clearly identified as OGC (they are not human readable to read any notice inside, and they are no longer in OGC folder). I'm not a lawyer (and probably because of that), but such logic seems to me as just exploitation of legal loophole, practically opposed to the spirit of Open Gaming. Original author did clearly identified OGC in his distribution - if somebody down that chain is breaking the rules by moving files from OGC folder, it shouldn't be the problem of original author. To drive the point home: say, I made 3D model of Troll and want to contribute it to OGC (3DS file + set of PNG textures) - current OGL *actively prohibits* me from doing so. In addition, the "human readability" even of "safe" XML or JS files could be subject to interpretation. Imagine trying to prove to the judge that XML print-out is human readable. ;) Files on different platforms can easily considered to be not human readable to each other. Etc. This is very unsettling loophole for software developers. - Max _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
