Hi!
> 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,
Run-time libs code and MFC code is included with MSVS for years now...
> and if you somehow did, you'd be killed in court if you distributed it.
Oh, yeah. Its innate Billg spell-like ability, at his 28th level works even without
court ;)
> 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.
Now, that would be nice...."Surreal, but nice..."
> 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.
Seems reasonable for me. After all source could be modified with any intent, not
necessary one what
will benefit the users. I would left some provisions to make sure everyone will only
add to code and
functionality, not to detract from it.
> 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. :)
LOL!
> 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.
if this is related to OGC / PI separation of D20 software, I think that's not
critical. Required
components should be OGC, PI components should be optional add-ons. So you *can* run
and *use* even
pure OGC version of software. But you will be able to do so much more with additional
commercial PI
components (like 10 more PI treasure tables vs. 1 OGC table, 20 PI character icons vs.
3 OGC icons,
etc).
> 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).
Troubling... ( Nothing gets shot down for no reason nowadays... )
> "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."
Ha ha! Good one. Better yet add text "Please consult Player Handbook page ## for the
details of this
task" and 2 buttons "Consider this a success?" and "Consider this a failure?" which
will allow to do
cascading calculations while leaving all success/failure decision in hands of user. (
"ohh, the
atmosphere! The atmosphere!" ;-)) )
- Max
