On Sunday 16 March 2003 11:31, Doug Meerschaert wrote: > You can either use the LGPL,
That's not the GPL. The LPGL is a specifically less restrictive license. They're not comparable. > or construct your program so that what you > want to close (the level files of a video game) are distinctly seperate > from the GPL'd program you've got. Possible, theoretically. In practice, very difficult if you want to create a viable original work that anyone would want. You would end up selling the equivalent of level packs rather than an actual game. > The GPL is, IMO, slightly less viral than the OGL, as it requires you to > use a license with similiar terms, but not the GPL itself. No, it requires you to use the GPL. Section 2b: "You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." > IMNSHO, the license should be revised so that all game rules have to be > OGC. It's a little late for that now. :) > This would be equivalent to the loophole that the OGL allows--if you > make something wholly new, you don't have to open it. I disagree that it's at all equivalent. I would see the equivalent as a non-open book of flavor text that expands upon a world previously opened in an OGL'd work. -Damian _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
