I've been trying to follow this discussion because I am very interested in this topic.
It is possible that I may have read things out of context so I am going to try and
regroup and respond to some of the issues all together.
I am not a lawyer but I have been been in the software industry for a long time and
because of my experince, speaking assignments, classes taught, articles written,
techinal book editing and the software I have produced I am considered an expert. So I
think my opinions can help clear some confusion.
1. I don't believe that source has to be released with a binary to satisfy the OGL.
2. If source code is not released I don't consider the source code to be the original
content and the binary to be a derivative. This is not true for anyone creating text
based OGC and releasing a PDF file or a printed document. A PDF file or printed
document isn't considered a derivative of their unreleased original notes. It should
not be different for software.
3. I do believe all of the files released with a binary executable is a work. A
folder, text file, pdf file or some other method containing all of the OGC used in
and/or by the binary will statisfy the OGL. If a printed module used came in two
booklets. One is the actual adventure and the second a complete OGC used in the first
it would statisfy the OGL as long as they are shipped together as one work. Software
is no different.
4. The source code has no relevance at all to the binary executable if not released
with it. Just as the type of pen used to scribble notes or the actual printing press
used to produce a printed OGL work.
5. The only relevant part of software is the output. The input and processing is not
and should not be governed by the OGL. Software can only be judged on the output it
produces. Whether that output results in a printed document, more files, or text on a
computer screen.
More comments inline below: (Original statements in between >>>>> and <<<<<).
>>>>>
> RealmsCrafters
>
> The binary is not a derivative of the source. No more than an
> Adobe PDF file is a derivation of someone's handwritten notes.
An original perspective at least. Are you suggesting instead that a binary
is an original work then, independent of the source code? If so we need not
have any more discussion of OGC and computer software, because if the binary
is not derivative, it doesn't fall under the OGL.
Except that it does.
-Brad
<<<<<
If the source code isn't released and the user is not expected to compile it then it
has no relevance.
>>>>>
> From: "Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
I don't know if that's what I'm assuming, since I'm not a programmer. By
source code I meant the software program itself must use _identified_ OGC.
You can't use OGC in the program which is not identified and then simply
include a separate listing of all the OGC content used in the program.
The OGC content must be identified in the program so that anyone who can
and does examine the program (itself, not what it outputs) can tell what
is OGC.
<<<<<
Here I think we have one of those misunderstanding because I read things out of
context.
We are talking about two separate things here:
1. Software that produces OGC material.
2. Software that uses OGC.
With case 1 if the software is not released as OGL then the software is not relevant.
This is the case soneone brought up earlier when they said that there software
produces OGC website content.
Case 2 is what I am talking about. Computer software is all about input, processing
and output. The OGL can't govern the mechanics of creating OGC just the resulting work
so the input and the processing is irrelevant. Software has to be judged solely on the
output. If the software can output the OGC as such it should satsify the OGL.
>>>>>
You can't use OGC in anything without identifying the OGC. Therefore you
can't have a program that doesn't identify the OGC where it is used. I
don't think that necessarily means the source code must be open, but the
OGC in the source code must be clearly identified and therefore open.
One easy solution is to make everything OGC, and therefore open. OGC is
by definition open, and cannot be made closed. That's true even if the
OGC is used in source code. I have absolutely no idea how one would go
about making some parts of source code open and other parts not. Under
the OGL, you'd merely claim all the rest is PI, but most people seem to be
saying that this is not possible for writing programs.
<<<<<
I understand that you aren't a programmer which is why I believe that the OGL should
have a clause or two about software. It is a special case. Your comments above prove
that even an intelligent reasonable person, such as yourself, has major trouble
understanding software and how it relates to the OGL.
In one sentence you state that the source code doesn't have to be open and then you
state that the source code must be clearly identified. Software isn't about source
code. Yes it does take source code to produce software but, like I said a few times
aleady, that is irrelevant. Just as which make and model of printer was used to
produce text based OGC. The OGL doesn't govern the process.
>>>>>
> What if the software wasn't released with source and a PDF file was
> destributed with the binary that contained all of the OGC? What if all
> of the OGC were in text files in a subfolder? What if all of the OGC
> content was displayed in red?
As long as the OGC is clearly identified your are fine. In your example,
there is no OGC in the program used to create the PDF file, all the OGC is
in the actual PDF. In such a case I don't believe anyone is saying there
is any problem use the OGL as currently written however. Same is true of
a word processing, spreadsheet or database document. The program itself
contains no OGC. The file when it's read must identify all the OGC.
<<<<<
Again, here I think we have a misunderstanding. My example didn't use a program to
produce a PDF file. I just gave it as an example of distributing the OGC used in the
program. It is my opinion that all the files distributed with a binary executable is a
work and so it can satisfy the OGL. If you don't agree then maybe this is what needs
to change in the OGL. We need a statement saying that all software is a collection of
one or more computer files.
>>>>>
> If content providers today can distribute a PDF file without the
> original source that produced the PDF why would a software developer
> have to release his/her source for a binary executable?
Because the program used to make a PDF has no OGC in it. Any program that
doesn't contain OGC but somehow creates an output containing OGC has
absolutely no problems complying with the OGL as long as the output
clearly identifies all OGC. Of course I fail to see how this has anything
to do with the current discussion. All of the discussion has revolved
around the creation of programs which actually contain or generate OGC for
the end user. Someone would have to explain to me how a program can
create OGC without actually containing OGC. Claiming that a PDF is the
same as a program designed to create random monsters or other such
material containing OGC is like comparing apples to oranges.
alec
<<<<<
Again, a misunderstanding. My point was if a content provider today releases a PDF of
new monsters without releasing the original notes and hand drawn sketches, why would a
software developer need to release their source code? My point was that source code is
analogous to the handwritten notes of a text based OGC publisher.
Robert Kozak
www.RealmsCrafters.com
-----------------------------------------------
FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
