On Sat, 20 May 2000, Otto Hammersmith wrote:
>
>
> Brad Thompson wrote:
> >
> > > Doesn't this break the idea of being able to provide value add in
> > > the form of artwork, typesetting, programs, and so on?
> > >
> > > What's the intent here, in any case?
> >
> > Not in the form of artwork & typesetting. What it DOES do is protect
> > OGL authors from having their work co-opted by third parties and
> > placed in a closed environment (software).
>
> I didn't mean to imply that artwork and typesetting were "broken" by
> this change. I considered software in the same category of artwork and
> typesetting... value add that you can make money from. Taking software
> out of the category make me wonder about the motivation.
>
If you do you art work on a computer or your typesetting on a computer, it
might just break it as well. I have heard a lawyer say that
"all computer files are software". (granted, not an IP lawyer, and in
fact sort of clueless about computers in general)
> What's the bad scenario that's prevented by the clause? (Non
> rhetorical, serious question. :)
Yeah, I would like to know this as well. I'm a software geek at heart.
I _am_ planing on releasing the code for my projects under the GPL, I'm
not real happy about releasing the whole thing under the GPL, just because
I'm not doing a dead tree version.
--
http://www.spellbooksoftware.com
If guns are outlawed can we use swords?
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
