Trolling? I'll bite. > That is a requirement that cannot be enforced. That's a preposterous reading of the OGL in my opinion. Even if it is WotC's official opinion. Why? Because I can distribute things as a PDF file, and if you don't have Acrobat reader, then if you try to read the document you'll fail to read it. And moreover, you may not be able to edit it at all without the passwords for the file. The ability to edit and view with a document whatever any given person does or does not have on their machine is a requirement that is not in the OGL anywhere. > > Similarly, if I distribute something as an Access database, there should be NO requirement that people without MS Access be able to read the file. Just as there should be no requirement that people be able to use the software at all on computer platforms for which the Access database does not exist.
Ok.... Let's try it another way, a human has to be able to understand what the OGC is, and that it is OGC. Other OGL publishers have to be able to use OGC listed in your data files to build off of (it is an OGC bit, after all). And Wizards needs a way to read it to enforce their licence.. If they can't acertain what is OGC and what is not, and that it is used correctly, the easiest thing for them to do is issue a C&D. You are talking several standard methods for data structure: Access, and even more so, PDF formats are fairly well known how to get an interpretor for. Of course, with the EULA associated with Access, I'm not sure you can open whole files to OGC. I haven't looked into it, personally. > The OGL requires only that OGC be "clearly indicated". I think the only reasonable way to interpret it is to assume that, "for those that have the appropriate mechanical and linguistic facilities to access a particular document, can they ascertain which parts of the data are OGC and which aren't?" Try running that one by a judge... "I have my own editor program. Yeah, a parser for it is a part of my binary file, but I don't distribute the parser or editor any any way outside of my binary program which only has the parser for its own use. But trust me, your Honor, it is human readable at my home machine using my editing program, so I can ascertain which parts are OGC and which aren't." Just taking your statement to the extreme. I hope you get the point without any ruffled feathers. > If OGC and PI were kept entirely separate, then I think it would take a court to decide if it was unacceptable to simply label, quite clearly, that all contents in file A are PI and all contents in file B are OGC and leave it to the end user to acquire software to open the files present, etc. I, personally, would be VERY clear if a software developer told me that "Everything on CD A is OGC" and "Everything on CD B is PI". The fact that I might need special software to edit or view my data would likely be the end user's problem, because if any interpretation other than that is used, then it starts opening up a huge can of worms whereby anybody without a specific piece of software who can't open a particular file could shout "non-compliance". Point taken, but then, if Wizards can't tell if you aren't following their licence, they have the right to issue a C&D. IANAL, but I think they get to define where that point is. That or another publisher that might want to use it as a source might try something, if there was new OGC stuff in it. > I honestly think _IF_ WotC's position is as restrictive as people have suggested that it is, it is that conservative because: > > a) people were distributing their OGC via software without any OGL in the distribution > b) people were distributing verbatim copies of their non-OGC stuff via software, blatantly violating their copyrights Nope. Has to do with enforcibility of the licence. But continue to think that if you want. BTW: as of last month, people were still putting out new softwhere with verbatim text they weren't authorized to used. So not 'were' but 'are.' One the other side, I can think of 3 software publishers off the top of my head that have good softwhere, and don't do that. But then, all of them crossed into gray areas and, through dialogue with Wizards, have changed their methods. This is the RPG industry. One of the few where cooperation between companies is fairly common. Even more so with the OGL. Stroke of genius, actually. > c) it is to their market advantage to control the d20-compatible software market given the presence of Mastertools You mean E-Tools. *Sigh* I can tell you for certain, that this is NOT the case, although it may seem so. Take it on faith, since I can't discuss why. There was a Press Release by Wizards and CMP back in December that explains why I can't. > d) they are trying to err on the side of safety regarding the license Hasbro signed to another company to allow them to handle their interactive games I'm not going to touch their contract with Infogrames. Not privy to any details. That is their concern, not mine. I'm still not sure why a lot of people have issues with that. > Now, I'm not saying that doing what I've said will not get you a C&D. I just think that if you got one it would be based on a somewhat thin premise. 'Thin' premise? No real such thin in the civil world. In the criminal, yeah. But that is comparing apples and oranges. Andrew McDougall a.k.a. Tir Gwaith _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
