From: "Max Skibinsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ryan, perhaps another solution would be to rename OGF into Shared-Source
Foundation with similar to
> Microsoft legal basis
Well, that would be like holding up an apple and calling it an orange, now
wouldn't it?
Shared-sorce means you can see the source, and you can comment on the source
so long as your comments are sent only to the owner of the source and not
discussed publicly, but you can't copy, modify, or distribute the source.
In fact, you cannot even >compile< the source. There's no way to tell if
the source you're being shown correlates in any way to the binaries you may
have in your possession.
Shared-source isn't a business strategy - it's a marketing strategy.
Open Gaming means you can copy, modify and distribute the Open Game Content.
It means you have the >irrevokable right< to copy, modify and distribute
Open Game Content merely by coming into possession of some. And it means
that you >must< give those same permissions to anyone to whom you
redistribute the Open Game Content.
That's why it's "Open", not "Shared".
The Player's Handbook is "Shared". The System Reference Document is "Open".
> If i will see outright restriction to work on D20/OGL software,
D20-related digital
> formats and distribution of D20/OGC materials via electronic media on OGF
page tomorrow, that would
> immediately answer all our current and future questions.
Except that none of those statements reflects the terms of the Open Gaming
License. You can produce OGL software. You can make OGL-related digital
formats, and you can distribute OGC materials via electronic media.
> Not to mention official PHB comes with very
> software and very digital CD slapped on the back, which produces very
binary non-human readable
> files as output.
Odd how that software isn't Open Game Content, eh? That's because it's not
licensed with the Open Gaming License.
> In summary: putting files in special folder "conveniently separate" OGC
materials, but still they
> are not "clearly identified" according to you.
I have no way of knowing if there is material in the binary that should be
clearly identified as OGC but has not been included in the folder. Thus my
copyright has been potentially compromised by restricting my ability to
ensure that my work has not been misued. Furthermore my rights under the
OGL have potentially be compromised because I may not be made aware that
some of the material in the binary is licensed for my use under the terms of
the OGL.
If I receive a copy of the binary file without the folder, I haven't
received the material necessary to allow me to excersize my rights under the
OGL. I may not in fact ever even know that the material I have received
entitles me to excersize those rights. In turn, being ignorant of those
rights and the obligations which are attached to them, I might pass the
binary on to a 3rd party, thus breaching the terms of the OGL myself. And
anyone to whom I distribute that binary will be in the same boat I am in.
Finally there is no way anyone can require that the binary file and the
folder be distributed together - because adding such a requirement to the
terms of the distribution of the Open Game Content portions of the work
would be attempting to make a new licensing term binding on the OGC, which
is specifically disallowed by the terms of the OGL.
In my opinion (we're back to the reasonable man test again), a binary file
without an easily mechanism for viewing the licensed material in a
human-readable format does not contain "clearly identified" Open Game
Content, thus it cannot be distributed using the OGL.
So let's review what you could do today, fully within the terms of the OGL.
You can write HTML/XML/ASP/JSP/etc. that uses Open Game Content.
You can write ASCII text files that contain Open Game Content.
You can create files that are easily and commonly viewable in a
human-readable format that contain Open Game Content (.PDF, .PS, .RTF, etc.)
If the OGL allowed no other form of distribution, it would still be
sufficient to promote the freedom to copy, modify and distribute game rules
and material that use those rules, thus it would fulfil the objective of the
Open Gaming Foundation in promoting that freedom.
But the OGL does not attempt to limit the method or format of the material
you choose to distribute. It does not presume to envision all the potential
mechanisms for distributing Open Game Content or the future methods that
might be invented. In fact, the OGL is 100% neutral about the format of the
distribution you choose to make. All it requires is that the format you
choose passes one simple test: The Open Game Content must be clearly
identified. Period, full stop, end of restrictions.
You can write a computer program using Open Game Content. That program
could do anything at all that you wished with the Open Game Content. It
could even be a fully functioning computer game based on the System
Reference Document. To be 100% crystal clear: You could write and
distribute a computer game that is essentially identical to Dungeons &
Dragons, including character creation, level advancement, etc.
In return for the unprecedented access and carte-blanche permissions
relating to its copyrights that Wizards is extending to the whole world, the
company insists on using a license which exemplifies the ideals of the Open
Gaming Foundation. Those ideals require that you distribute Open Game
Content in a way that will be beneficial to those who receive it, and that
the recipients of the work you distribute based on the material licensed for
your use get the exact same rights to use that material that you received
from Wizards or any other person who contributed Open Game Content to your
work. You must, per the terms of the license, do unto others as you would
have others do unto you.
It will be up to you and your attorney (and the recipients of your work, and
the owners of any copyrights in the material you use from a 3rd party, and
those people's lawyers) to determine if your preferred method of
distribution "clearly identifies" the Open Game Content in your work.
My opinion is that a distribution of Open Game Content in a binary file that
cannot be directly viewed in a human-readable format in some reasonably
simple and generally available way will violate the Open Game License,
becuase that Open Game Content will >not< be clearly identified. My advice
to you therefore is "don't do it".
If you disagree, nothing I can do could possibly stop you from going ahead
with some other form of distribution and taking your chances.
It would be inaccurate of you to suggest that the OGL >prohibits< you from
distributing computer software containing Open Game Content, because it
clearly does not do so.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
