I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I believe
that you can ship a commercial binary, and still be compliant
with the OGL. How? By including the rules/settings
that are open content in the rule book, and marking
them as open content. This would seem to honor
both the letter of the OGL, and the spirit of the
OGL as well.
Now perhaps not everyone wants to take the time to
do this, and releasing source code would also allow
you to mark what was open content, but it's not the
only way.
Jaimi McEntire
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ryan S. Dancey
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 7:49 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] SRD, Computer Junk, and Going Nuts...
From: "John J. Kaufman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Folder idea my be technically necessary in some cases. How for example
would
> you recommend to
> "clearly identify" as OGC a binary file?
Bingo.
That's why I've suggested that only using an Open Source license could you
comply with the OGL; you would not distribute the binary, you'd just
distribute the source. If a recipient compiles the source into a binary,
that binary is not required meet the OGL >unless it is redistributed<. As
long as you don't distribute a binary file you created you will not be
subject to the terms of the OGL.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
