> Also, you mentioned that software was a big no-no right now (third rail, I
> think you called it), can you give us any insight as to what has to change
> before it can be addressed?
The Guide has (IMNSHO) a pretty good definition of the products we're
worried about from a D20 standpoint.
>From the standpoint of the OGL, the problem is pretty straightforward. If
you use Open Game Content in the code for your software, but you only
distribute an executable, you've essentially found a way to reduce the Open
content to Closed content.
Even more challenging, perhaps, is the very, very narrow view the Open
Source movement takes of derivative works. In the opinion of that
community, the use of even so much as one function from an Open source
creates a derivative work based on that Open content, and under the terms of
most of the popular Open/Free software licenses, the resulting work must
>also< be made Open/Free in its entirety.
This could be addressed in the OGL by requiring software which makes use of
Open Game Content to use an Open Source license, and the two most logical
candidates seem to be the PERL Artistic License or the Free Software
Foundation's GPL.
The downside to making that change is that it raises the bar for people who
want to write software for Windows PCs, because most of the common Windows
programs use non-free code or modules and wouldn't comply with either
license.
I think this is just an issue that is going to have to simmer for a while on
the back burner while we get other parts of the initiative finished.
Ryan
