On Sat, 20 May 2000, Brad Thompson wrote:
> > Otto Hammersmith
> >
> > What's the bad scenario that's prevented by the clause? (Non
> > rhetorical, serious question. :)
>
> You write a killer module, and spread it around the net under OGL. I turn
> it into a game and it becomes the next Baldur's Gate. You get nothing
> except a mention in the credits. More importantly, you no longer have
> access to your own material - it is buried in the source code of the work,
> which is owned by someone else. The only way around this would be to
> require the source material to be included with every copy of the binary
> code.
>
If this change goes into effect you can't "spread it arount the net under
the OGL". To be spread around the net it's software. (or to some legal
types at any rate). If it's software it has to be GPL. Double plus
ungood.
> As true as all that may be, the real reason is that this prevents a
> commercial publishing house from building d20 software without permission
> from Hasbro Interactive.
I suspect this is the case, which does NOT make me a happy camper.
> If I were a commercial publishing house this would probably bother me a lot.
I'm not really a CPH in this context and it bothers me.
>
> Something to keep in mind is that software these days is modular. If you
> put all the OGL material into a DLL, OCX, shared library, or plug-in, then
> all you would need to release is the source code for that particular object.
> The rest of your program could be your own.
>
I'm not real sure you can pull that off. You might be able to release a
verion that "needs data files", and the datafiles be your own, but I
think, but could be wrong, that you can't release a software product that
is semi-GPL/semi-closes. Time to go read the GPL again.
> I personally think Hasbro should instruct Fluid to create an COM control for
> their character generator rulebase, and sell it to gamers for $20 a pop
> without any redistribution rights. Then they get all the revenue from the
> software, but gamers can still create 'hobby' tools without needing to
> release the source code. It would be easy to use version control to force
> gamers to re-buy the game component periodically (as new games used new
> features). Even professional houses could write d20 software, and Hasbro
> would get a cut. Of course, they would need to strike their own
> redistribution agreement with Hasbro to do that.
Of course for those of us that don't worship at the shrine of BillG, this
will do squat. Nice idea any way.
--
http://www.spellbooksoftware.com
If guns are outlawed can we use swords?
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
