> Sure. I've already said so explicitly. There is absolutely nothing in > the OGL that relates to software at all. The OGL is software neutral. ... > here and other places related to the OGL chose to have this problem. It > is a choice that the paper-based publishers don't have to face because > they can easily implement the clauses which define clearly identifying > Open Game Content, whereas the software guys have not shown an interest > in doing so in their unique medium.
(Raises a hand) Hi Ryan, as software guy I'm hereby showing my interest how to cleary identify OGC in my unique medium. Can you please give me and other "software guys" here your advise how to do so - at least on same terms as paper-based publishers? If memory serves me right, "showing interest" is what we have been very actively doing over here for last year or so. So far all we got is a) "Release it as Open Source". b) "Don't use OGL for software", c) .....silence, as communications are ignored. Lets review these options: a) Never Winter Nights, Master Tools are not released as Open Source. Therefore small software guys like us have no choice but to follow the corporate wisdom of WotC / Hasbro / Bioware. If they are not releasing any software as open source, probably more experienced business executives running these companies had some good reason for this, right? b) "Don't use OGL for software" - don't sounds like software neutral statement. c) even if having positive side of being universal solution, unfortunately is not really helpful, and hardly can be considered a permanent solution. Lets try again. As you said paper-based publishers has clear and easy way to separate PI and OGC, so their products are commercial, not 100% open source products. (I can't photocopy PH and resell it, right?). Is there ANY WAY for software publisher to enjoy the same freedom under OGL? I.e. without being forced to give 100% for free as OpenSource and 0% as PI? Anything to "clearly identify" - separating OGC files in folders, displaying OGC notices, providing filelists, anything at all? If your professional opinion is that OGL can't offer ANY alternative - then FiveStat guys are just right. If such simple thing as separating PI (for example: code) and OGC (data) in software is not possible under current OGL, then OGL is over-restrictive and software anticompetitive license. - Max P.S. > what you do, as long as you comply with the OGL. The 3rd parties care > because they don't really want to give you free software - they want to > use Open Game Content to create a non-free software product that they > can sell you along with a license that restricts your rights to copy, > modify and distribute that software. Lets have one thing very clear here. "3rd parties don't really want to give you free software" is just as correct statement as "WotC don't really want to give you free books". To the best of my knowledge there is 0 paper-based publishers who offers you 100% complete and free copies of their sourcebooks. So far everything discussed here about software is just about how to get at least same options for software publishers as the options available to paper-based publishers. If this is impossible under current OGL, then the fault is not with 3rd parties (which simply are playing by same rules as everyone else) but with the license, which deliberately or incidentally discriminated against WIDE range of products. _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
