From: "Michael Hahn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> A roguelike game is created, using resources from the SRD. This is
> programmed in Java. If I were to state in the license information that
> "Class files X, Y, and Z contain all OGC in this program. The interface
> to these class files is published in files A, B and C." would this be
> acceptable as "clearly indicated?"
My opinion is "no". The actual files themselves that contain the OGC need
to somehow self-identify the content that they contain that is OGC. In my
opinion, it's not going to be acceptable to put the definition of OGC in a
separate or easily separable work.
The second problem you have is the derivative works issue, which I've been
avoiding to try and keep the issue focused on how the OGL applies to
sourcecode. The derivative works problem is pretty simple: The Open
Source/Free Software community believes that if you use so much as one line
of code from a copyleft license, your work, in the whole, becomes derivative
of that previous work and must comply with the copyleft.
Some clever tricks could actually be used with the PI clause of the OGL to
try and minimize this problem, but I haven't spent any brain cells trying to
work through a hypothetical example.
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
