Ryan S. Dancey, (s)he say:
>> No, it most definitely is NOT. You're concentrating solely on the
>> Debian/GNU definition of Open Source, which was the first, but is no
> longer
>> the only open source license out there by a long shot.
>
> I'm sorry, but calling a spade a heart doesn't make it a heart. The term
> Open Source has a widespread and very specific definition, and that
> defintion is more extensive than just a requirement for the distribution of
> source code along with executable code.
And, here it is (paraphrased from the horse's mouth,
<http://www.hams.com/OSD.html>) along with some midnight-induced whinging:
1. Free Redistribution - You can't restrict anyone else from selling or
giving away the software.
Cool.
2. Source Code - You must include full source code or at least a way of
getting it.
The first stumbling block, and my main argument against the current
definition of Open Source. No Windows or Mac OS software can ever be Open
Source by the definition, since they link against code libraries which you
will never get the source to, and if you somehow did, you'd be killed in
court if you distributed it.
The LGPL allows you to create a library of code, and compile it into another
program which is not Open Source. For example, I could create a library of
code which deals with OGL/d20 rules and Open Source that, and compile it
into the final program.
However, that library cannot link in or rely on code that isn't Open Source.
So, I cannot use, for example, the nifty Valentina database to deal with the
massive data-wrangling required for a RPG utility. I'd have to find a good
Open Source database which can be linked in, or write my own. (There are
several great Open Source databases, but I haven't found one yet that can be
linked into the program.)
And, of course, you can't use anything but straight ANSI-C, otherwise your
code links in non-Open Source OS code. Furthermore, on most Mac OS and
Windows development environments, you can't even use ANSI-C, because they're
linked libraries.
3. Derived Works - You have to allow derived works.
Derived works rock, yo. That's why I have a long history of providing source
for the tricky bits of my software, with no restrictions on use. (And why,
in its waning years, I convinced the others in BadgerCom to public-domain
the source code to our RPG Tools. Quite smartly, no one came looking for it.
I shudder to think at the prospect of any of that code still being alive.)
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code - You can restrict redistribution
of modified source as long as you allow distribution of "patch files".
Maybe some authors care about this. If someone takes my Expression Parser
and creates a porn site generator with it, then distributes that code, um,
okay.
Anyone smart enough to be reading the code will be smart enough to recognize
the various contributions.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups - You can't say "Everyone but
Clark Peterson can use this code".
And a damn shame that is. :)
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor - You can't say "No one can
use this code for a role-playing game utility".
This also means you can't say, "you can't make commercial software with it",
which I'm all for.
7. Distribution of License - You can't require an additional license to be
executed for distribution.
In my non-lawyerly opinion, this means you cannot create OGL or d20 software
that fits the definition of Open Source, sadly, since any OGL or d20
software would be infected with the OGL at a minimum.
The Open Source gang have repeatedly insisted that anything included with
the software, or is required to run the software is part of the software, so
you can't get away with, say, data files in one distribution, and the
software in another.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product - You can't say, "You can only
create Linux derivatives with the software."
Okay.
9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software - You can't place
restrictions on other software distributed with the software.
A recent addition to the definition, and a welcome one.
----
My IANAL final analysis:
I don't believe it's possible to write software that complies with the d20
license -and- falls under the Open Source definition. It's also quite
tricky, if not impossible, to write software for the Mac OS or Windows that
falls under the Open Source definition (Eric Raymond said as much at Mac
Hack last year, raising quite a stink when he said the entire Mac
development community were crooks, and unless they abandoned Mac OS, they'd
never be able to write Open Source software. We sent him a thank you gift
for the keynote, anyway. We're a nice community.).
How am I crossing this chasm for now? 1. only my gaming group gets to use
Oberon for now. Mwa ha ha! 2. Waiting to see if I can ever legally release
my program (no, really, it rocks! and I intend to give away the source to at
least the bits that deal with d20, if not everything!).
I look forward to releasing Oberon to the general public (Mac OS only for
now - and believe me, I'd have never undertaken a project this massive if
MasterTools were coming for us - but since Valentina is cross-platform, and
there's a PowerPlant to MFC shim library, maybe I can compete on Windows,
too... nah) and the massive d20 utility library Oberon sits on top of to the
RPG software development community.
Maybe the real answer is a separate agreement for software (which idea has
been bandied about in these parts already and temporarily shot down, IIRC).
--
Kevin Tatroe
www.islandspirits.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"This program cannot tell you if your Spot check succeeded. It can tell you
that you rolled a modified 18; the DC was 15. The difference is +3. Positive
numbers good; negative numbers bad." - Public releases of Oberon will not
contain a skill check roller, for obvious reasons.
