From: "RealmsCrafters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1. I don't believe that source has to be released with a binary to satisfy
the OGL.
The OGL does not distinguish between formats. It is format netural.
> 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.
The law, however, does. Sorry.
> A PDF file or printed document isn't considered a derivative of their
unreleased
> original notes.
A derivative work is created whenever pre-existing copyrighted material is
combined with other material to create a new work. In Stallone v Anderson,
a writer (Anderson) created a script for a Rocky movie using nothing other
than the characters from the previous films, but the resulting work was held
to be derivative of those films by the court.
A PDF file can be derivative of "unreleased" notes - if those notes were
fixed in a tangible medium (like a file on a hard drive or written/printed
to paper).
> 3. I do believe all of the files released with a binary executable is a
work.
The courts tend to interpret a "work" in the broadest possible sense,
extending the definition to any reasonably clear aggregation of content. In
fact, Title 17 (the copyright statute) goes into some detail about the
difference between a derivative work and a compilation just to make it clear
that the two forms could exist (otherwise the courts would have been forced
to treat compilations as one big work).
For computer software, the courts have tended to view "compilations" as
seperate projects or products released on the same medium, but otherwise
totally disconnected. A "demo" game shipped on the same CD as the full game
is considered a "compilation", for example. All the files, folders,
resources, etc. used by any single product on that disk are going to be
considered a "work" as far as the court is concerned.
> If a printed module used came in two booklets.
The courts are more at ease with the distinction between separately bound
manuscripts than they are with binary files with an unknown (and unknowable)
number of potential interconnections. (BTW: If those two booklets came
packaged together in a slipcase or in a box, the courts would probably
consider them to be a single work too, unless a case could be made that they
comprised a compilation).
> 5. The only relevant part of software is the output.
Again, the courts totally disagree. The code is the thing that can be
copyright by the author, not necessarily the output. As far as Title 17
goes, when applied to software cases there's the code (machine,
human-readable source, compiled binary, or some intermediate format), and
there's almost nothing else that matters. (I suspect that the art and
audio-visual components of modern multi-media applications will extend this
horizon a bit, but that's neither here nor there).
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
