Ryan, thanks for your time and detailed explanation. Still, I simply can�t agree with
your
arguments. Judging by recent messages it�s not just me who thinks you have double
standard � one for
books/text materials, another for digital files/software.
> 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.
But as you have explained that�s precisely the current state of things regarding
digital & binary
files with OGL/OGC. What good is that it�s theoretically possible, but there is no
practical way to
mark binary files as OGC under current terms of OGL? That is just as good as outright
restriction �
just indirect on in this case.
> 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.
However, as soon as I choose to execute that right by copy & modifying OGC into
digital file I�m
already �taking chances�, right? Let say I want to convert Creature Collection OGC
into MDB database
and slap on the script, which will generate random names. Then redistribute that MDB
file as OGC. Of
course there is no guarantee that everybody in world own MS Access, or can run it.
Even if I want to
share and redistribute that OGC to 100 people in small web-community who *have* Access
� I�m still
breaking the rules according to you.
>And it means
> that you >must< give those same permissions to anyone to whom you
> redistribute the Open Game Content.
Right. Lets take PDF as example. PDF is certainly leader how most of RPG materials in
D20/OGL orbit
are distributed nowadays. Reality check � no one by default can exercise their right
to modify of
PDF data. PDF is not editable without sort of expensive tool from Adobe! Therefore for
months now
lots of released OGC materials can�t be modified unless the receiver of OGC *pay money
for editor to
one particular company*. And you are telling me that binary PDF is fine as OGC, while
binary FCW
role-playing map (which also requires proprietary free viewer and commercial editor)
is not? That�s
double standard. By the way, PDF makes any sense to us just because we know where to
download free
viewer. For average computer unsophisticated person PDF extension doesn�t mean
anything just as he
has no idea where he can get the viewer. Therefore PDF is readable and clearly
identified only to
[small] segment of the market � advanced computer users.
> > software and very digital CD slapped on the back, which produces very
> Odd how that software isn't Open Game Content, eh? That's because it's not
> licensed with the Open Gaming License.
Yes, it was licensed with license not available to anyone else, but that�s not my
point. My point is
that already with every point of PHB sold � new *binary* standard is enforced. Since
PHB contains
materials restricted to reproduce under D20 thus making PHB a requirement � it�s only
logical the
authors of D20 materials will consider everyone potentially can run PHB chargen as
well. However as
soon as they release few PHB produced binary files as OGC � see above. Odd isn�t it?
They can use
PHB rules to produce OGC text but they can�t use PHB software to produce OGC files.
Because they are
binary.
> 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
And it�s absolutely same way with books. I have no way of knowing if there is material
in some
�Monster Collection� that should be clearly identified as OGC but has not been listed
as such on
book cover page. Considering that Monster Collection could be 500 pages volume of
small print, and
contain special section for German role-playing game "Das Schwarze Auge� (in German)
the ability of
average person to determinate that by reading whole book is rather limited.
> copyright has been potentially compromised by restricting my ability to
> ensure that my work has not been misued. Furthermore my rights under the
How you plan to detect have your copyright been compromised or your work misused in
the section on
German language? You can get a translator if you really want to know that. Same as
person who really
wants to know what�s inside binary file can buy/download proprietary reader to do the
same. So the
primary requirement should not be that everyone has binary reader automatically
installed. The
requirement should be such reader is *available*.
> 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.
As far I understand your arguments they all require un-ethical software author and/or
re-distributor. He is not including all OGC in folder he promised to, he is not
listing necessary
content as OGC, etc etc. I can use *exactly same* arguments about un-ethical book
author and start
proving that OGC book printing is not complying with OGC for exactly same reasons.
Lets accept that
software author *is* ethical, he put all files in folder, and supplied description
file. And return
to realm of OGL licensing of binary files (which has nothing to do with ethical
aspects of authors).
> If I receive a copy of the binary file without the folder, I haven't
> received the material necessary to allow me to excursive my rights under the
> OGL. I may not in fact ever even know that the material I have received
Right. Same as if you received Relics and Rituals where somebody cut off the pages
with OGL info.
However so far I have seen very little people sneaking in hobby shops with razors and
deleting pages
from books stored there (possibility always exists of course). So lets ignore abstract
examples
about distribution of deliberately corrupted software or resale of books with torn off
pages.
> 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.
I still fail to see why these risks are specific to software/digital files. You are
running exactly
same risks with *already released books with OGC*. Somehow such concerns haven�t
stopped anyone so
far. Why should they stop software developers? Double standards again?
> 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
Perhaps. But no one limits you to state in original distribution that these files
(list follows) are
OGC and every redistribute must mark them as OGC content in whatever way he chooses to
mark OGC in
his distribution. Finally, original author can support static and unchanging web-page
with list of
all binary OGC files he had released. That page is impossible to modify for 3rd
parties, and final
users can always check against this page what have they gotten.
We are sliding toward technical aspects how to mark content as OGC. Some may use
folder, some may
name files as OGC_*.*, some may use webpage. Anyway, bottom line would be that its
�clearly
identified� which files are OGC. You keep throwing us examples about un-ethical
redistribution
scenarios. I don�t even want to start to list various ways to completely screw up OGL
with unethical
book/text redistribution. Again � no one stopped releasing books under OGL/OGC because
of those
risks. It�s not problem of original author. However, somehow you are trying to make
*that* a problem
of software/digital file author.
> 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.)
Here we go again. Ryan, there is no such thing as �common viewable format� for ALL
computer users.
You either address one segment of it or the other. It�s your choice of segment versus
mine, or Brad,
or Doug. So tell me for what segment you want OGC to be �clearly identified�? Windows
3.1, Win98,
W2K, Mac, Linux, BeOS, OS/2 users? I�m sure you know that Linux/Unix simplest text
file uses
different new line code and Unix text file *is not human readable* for average user in
Windows. It
will look like one endless string in free and default Notepad. Fixing it require
advanced windows
user knowledge (10% or less of windows users).
I have binary format X. It has free viewer which person can download from Internet.
Now � is format
X commonly viewable? Depends on whom you ask! If format X has no Linux viewer � its
not viewable to
Linux users, but is viewable for Windows users. Also, until format is readable user
should somehow
posses extra knowledge where to get the viewer. (Like he has to with PDF files). There
is no simple
answers, and no "global" standarts for everyone. Just popular formats in certain
segments.
Instead of restricting us to very narrow list of formats we should require that
binary format in
question *must have* and publicly available reader. That�s the job of user to find
that viewer and
install it. Same as it would be my job to learn German if I would want to read German
D20 setting.
> 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.
Perfect! And now again � why I can�t state �All files in folder X� or �All files
beginning with OGC_
are OGC�. Because there are potential wrong-doers who will redistribute that in
corrupted form? That
�s not serious�
> 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.
Perfect yet again! However as it appears at same time you are arguing that
binary/digital files are
improper vehicle to store and distribute OGC content. How possible anyone could write
decent
software (not to say game), which is limited to operation only on text files? We have
case with
theoretical nice & bright possibility but practically there is no way to realize it.
And of course
even if somebody would go for it, the performance of text-file-only based
software/game would be so
abysmal that Wizards/Hasbro can blow this software out of the water in a second just
because they
are not limited to text-only formats. Of course � that�s again just happy conscience
things are
stacked that way, no conspiracy theories.
> 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.
This sounds very nice! But how we are coming to the fact that yet somehow the
distribution of binary
digital formats is virtually impossible? Its clearly would be very beneficial if
people would start
to assemble databases of various OGC materials (creates, spells, items). I bet
everyone here would
love nothing more then to get MDB proprietary file with some sort of OGC data, include
their extra
OGC data, and pass this MDB along with all required OGL headers. Even if MDB falls in
hands of Linux
person, I bet he will find some way to convert MDB to whatever Linux DB format is, and
pass that
file along. Even with shortcomings of MDB being not readable to Linux person, and his
DB file not
readable for to windows person, this is clearly win-win situation.
As far as I understand you reasoning � that wouldn�t be possible since MDB content
won�t be �clearly
identified� for all possible OS versions. Therefore as result no one will make and
distribute MDB
files as OGC. As result Linux person will have nothing to convert from. So as result
of *current OGL
policies as explained to us by author* nothing of that sort could ever happen �
Windows and Linux
user will *both* sit with empty hands and retarded text file at best. As I recall your
last email
you don�t feel OGL need to be changed anytime soon to reflect that sort of activity.
That�s your
right to keep it that way � but lets not talk then about how its about being open and
being
innovative. I would call it cleverly manipulated into making all *practical* OGL/OGC
exchange
limited to obsolete text-only formats which by definitions can�t compete with
Wizards/Hasbro.
> In return for the unprecedented access and carte-blanche permissions
> relating to its copyrights that Wizards is extending to the whole world, the
That is true. We quite appreciate the opportunity, thank you and Wizards for that. But
freedom is
like perfume � once out its very hard to put it back in the bottle. If it�s about
exchanging open
RPG content � lets be completely open, not just for authors of books and text files.
- Max
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
