> From: Max Skibinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > 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.
I think that's a terribly unfair and inaccurate portrayal. I have discussed this topic on this list at least a dozen times. I have offered suggestions, advice, and opinion. I have not ignored anyone. I don't have the resources (i.e. lawyers) to develop an effective system for clearly identifying OGC in software. WotC doesn't want to spend the money to do so because it doesn't see any benefit to itself in spending the necessary time and money. Someone else, who does, needs to fund that effort. That means finding someone competent to advise you about the issues of copyright as it applies to software, a firm understanding of copyright licenses, and some in-depth research into copyleft licenses and the OGL in particular. I am not qualified to give you a workable solution. Such a solution will vary from application to application, and from publisher to publisher based on content and intent of the code. > 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? They have elected to use the profit model of closed source software. What does this comment have to do with the topic? > b) "Don't use OGL for software" - don't sounds like software > neutral statement. I think you need to spend some time reading the archives. You'll find me suggesting that the OGL is not a good software license and that it is not a good platform for for-profit software applications. You'll find numerous messages from me explaining that the license is media-neutral and that software based on the OGL would be perfectly fine as long as the publisher complied with the terms of the license. Fact: Nothing in the OGL prohibits your use of it in conjunction with a for-profit software project Fact: Nothing in the OGL prohibits you from encumbering the non-OGC parts of your software with more restrictive licensing terms Fact: Nothing in the OGL requires you to disclose the source of your software in human-readable form > Is there ANY WAY for software > publisher to enjoy the same freedom under OGL? I am reasonably confident that such a method could be developed. > 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". Of course. As you realize, of course, WotC isn't asking permission to use someone else's copyrights. The 3rd parties, in this case, are. Frankly, I find the whole tone of your message hostile. I fail to see why the discussion took this turn for the worse. Ryan _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
