<<Oh, I agree. It must be clearly marked. But why not mark the User
interface? Everything under this tab is considered OGC type of thing.
You are still displaying the information, just in a different way than
on paper. It seems to me that if you can mark a pdf file as clearly OGC,
even if it is full of pictures like hieroglyphics ;-) why not ogc the
picture representation of the user interface?
>>
Perhaps workable. I'd have to see the implementation. I was actually aiming at a narrower scope of electronic publishing than just the distribution of binary executables.
I was responding to claims made by a couple of list members that OGC needed to be distributed in such a fashion that it could be opened with a text editor (one member said this, I think) and then easily edited/viewed by WotC personnel who are assigned to police the license.
I'm certain that pure software presents its own problems for the OGL, but I think these list members who have basically demanded that all electronic distributions be made in the English language with all OGC as ASCII text are reading a small book into the OGL that just isn't there.
My point is only that the intent of the licensee can't be to obfuscate what is and is not OGC. And that while he needs to be clear about which electronic data files are OGC and _maybe_ even how they might be accessed, there is no requirement that said method of access be something that everyone with every kind of computer operating system in the world speaking every human language in existence need be able to accomplish.
So long as the target audience has reasonable access to the OGC then I think a great deal of the requirements of the license has been met, even if NOBODY in WotC can open up the electronic file in question without shelling out money for a new piece of computer software and by hiring a professional translator.
Again, as I've said before, I think the license is vague in some parts. If you just look at the number of threads in the archives that effectively turn on the phrase "clearly indicated", people have some very different standards for that. I think a little more specificity would have been useful in some lines.
I think even if it restricted my rights some, I _might_ be more inclined to use a revised version of the OGL that was a bit more specific in some instances. That way I and others who used it would be more universally "on the same page" about expectations.
