-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan S. Dancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>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.
Isn't this the exact same situation if someone hands me the Creature
Collection without the OGL in it?
I think you're being a *bit* too strong about this. Software isn't
distributed by trading executables anymore--people either send source code,
ISOs, or install files. Source code is human-readable (allegedly), while
ISOs and install files allow the producer to create that OGC folder every
time.
It *looks* like all someone who wants electronic OGC has to do is make sure
that all of their distributions shows the OGC; if someone zips up the
directory and sends that zip around without the OGC folder, isn't it the
same (legally) as a random fan photocopying an OGL'd book and leaving out
the OGL & Clear Identification?
If it's open-source (I have no idea if someone could make a OGC-based
closed-source program), then all he has to do is place explicit instructions
in his version notes / readme / MAN files that any binary install has to
make an OGC folder.
>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.
?
Wouldn't that be simply noting the proper form for the work? Or in other
words, if someone *else* distributes the binary w/o the OGC folder (say,
they make a new install, or a new compile of the soruce code they download
from your site) isn't it THEIR violation and none of your concern?
>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.
It would also be possible (though probably bulkly) to simply include a "view
OGC" option in the software itself. Or, the binary could check for &
overwrite if necessary the OGC folder every startup.
>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.
Or in other words "don't take legal adivce from strangers on the internet."
:)
>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.
I feel like taking the wild step here and pointing out the "remedy" section
of the OGL: If you try it, and you mess up, the worst thing that happens is
you have to go around and take all reasonable efforts to fix it.
So, in my 99% amatuer opinion, if you're going to run a game server over the
net and have a client program which contains OGC in the install folder, the
worst thing that could happen is you being forced to shut down; simply
asking for e-mail registration and regular checks for updates, and then
e-mailing these necessary updates & posting them on your website, would be
sufficent.
But then again, I'm a loser with $.37 off in New York. Don't trust me.
DM
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
