Re: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project
Thus, OGC.c could be considered under OGL, being as it is, completely my work, based upon the SRD and other Open gaming content, and all the other files, which were based off GPL work, would be GPL'd. What does this make the compiled binary? (not an issue, if I don't distribute the binary) --- Jeremy Noetzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The parts of your code which do not handle OGL'd > material are not under > the OGL, thus you could have a GPL license for the > 'framework' while > OGLing everything that's derived from OGL material, > such as the SRD. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project
Well, this is mostly academic, anyway, as I (at the moment) do not have the drive to create this modification. I would, however, like to see it done, and was exploring the possibility. Allow me to explain the situation in detail. ID Software, some years ago, wrote a little game called Quake 2. This game was wildly sucessful, and sold googles of copies. After a while, the sales died down a bit, so they decided to boost the sales much in the same way WOTC has... by allowing the community at large to modify the game. They released the source code for the DLLs which determine the physics and such in the game, which allowed people to make bouncing, heat-seeking grenades that giggled as they tracked down thier hapless prey. The idea to combine these two wonderfully sucessful franchises has been rattling around in my skull ever since. --- Joe Mucchiello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 12:13 AM 8/3/2003 -0700, Jeremy Noetzelman wrote: > > Yes, but the original author, to me, made it sound > like he's found an abandoned project and he want to > convert it to d20. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project
Well, let's say I buy the "Slayer's guide to Fuzzy Bunnies", photocopy the entire book, with the exception of the License section, and pass it around to all my friends. Who's liable here? Me? The store that sold it to me? The publishing company? How about the author? Also, any binary I'm likely to compile would also fall under the GPL, as the base source for the game I'm designing this for was released under same. Under the GPL, if I recall correctly, you MUST include the source along with the binary, and any further distribution of your code without the source is actionable. So if someone were to do this, I don't see where *I* would be at fault, for something *they* did, which was in violation of both licenses. Especially if, As I surely would, I were to note, that distribution of the Mod without the source was in violation of several licences. --- Jeff Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was told by Andrew Smith that a distributing a > human readable COPY of the code with the binary was > NOT acceptible because the possibility existed that > future users could just leave out that file and > distribute the binary by itself, thus undermining > the spirit behind the license. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project
Economic Darwinism. The foolish will elliminate themselves, the brave will assist the others. I leave it up to time and the courts to decide which one you are. ;) --- Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, go for it, man. If you lose, there's one less > competitor, and if you win, everyone gets the > benefit. Win-win! __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project
Ok... So if I distribute the un-compiled source ONLY, with, perhaps, a link to a free compiler, and the afore-mentioned SRD-type file I am not in violation. BUT... If I compile the source prior to sending it out, even if I also include the source AND the SRD-type file, I am in violation? > If all OGC you distribute is clearly indicated and > human readable, then you're fine. The fact that the > end user compiles it into something which could not > be further redistributed does not invalidate your > license. = "I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature." -- Thomas Jefferson |\ /| |\ |\ \ / /\ \| |><| |\/| |\ |\/| | X | |/ |\ X \/ | | | | | |/ | | |/ \| |\ | / \ /\ |\ | | | | |\ | | __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project
Well, Of course I would include the source and license it under the OGL, making the OGC as clearly marked as is possible in a piece of Code, but that would give me three options. 1) Inlude the OGC willy-nilly, but clearly labeled, in the code, wherever it woiuld be most efficient for that particular bit of code to be. 2) Use an include function to have all the OGC in one file, which would make it easier to find, but still force the reader to determine that a line of gibberish actually means "roll a d20 and add the result to this #" and then put the rules in an inteligible format based on the implimentation of the rules in the game. (which would be like watching a gaming group play a game, and without borrowing anyone's books, building the class information of each of thier classes) 3)Or, simply put all that information in an SRD-type format included along with the source (using either of the two above options, the second being my favorite) Or is all this a moot point, because the source, as used in-game, is compiled into a non-human readable DLL? > But if anywhere in your source there appears anyone > else's OGC, or anything > derived from anyone else's OGC, then your source has > to be human readable > and licensed under the OGL. > > Don't blame me. I wish it wasn't like that. But that > appears to be how > Wizards views it. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project
Well, with the two examples I stated, the OGC is effectively transparent. In a MUD, while it is text-based, all the actual OGC is behind the scenes. Perhaps the closest to actually showing OGC is if some ability allows you to see the number of hitpoints the elf you're fighting has. -note: certainly, in this case, we could color-code the name of OGC and non-OGC "monsters" in the game, as well as spell effects and such. In a 3-D First person game, the OGC is even less apparent. the OGC effectively, never appears. In both cases, while the source is usually freely available, and in the case of a Quake Mod, almost always distributed with the mod itself(under the GPL), the source for these is, to the average person likely to be wanting to use the OGC, illegible (ie: requires special prgramming knowledge to read) Thus, the logical next step, an external, human readable, document containing all the OGC used to create the program. To illustrate this example, Let's say someone wants to make a sourcebook for 3.5e based off my Quake Mod. The quote you provided implies that he would have to sort work his way through my Mod, at each point with a note-pad in hand, and jot things down. OR, he could load up Adobe reader, and use exactly what he wants from the game, rather than having to figure out things. --- "Martin L. Shoemaker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You missed, but not for lack of trying. > > What you suggest makes perfect sense to me. What > others have suggested -- > just declare the whole binary as OGC and thus it's > clearly indicated -- also > makes perfect sense to me. = "I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature." -- Thomas Jefferson |\ /| |\ |\ \ / /\ \| |><| |\/| |\ |\/| | X | |/ |\ X \/ | | | | | |/ | | |/ \| |\ | / \ /\ |\ | | | | |\ | | __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
Re: [Ogf-l] Possible Formation of Project
I think I my have a solution for this. Include all the OGC in a seperate, human readable format, entitled (or at least subtitled) "OGC included in this software" In the case of a MUD, this could be a Book, in the "library", where anyone who was interested, could read and print out the text. Instructions on how to find it would be available at login, and at the player respawn point. In a PC software game, if could be a PDF format document that is installed with the rest of the game files. Let's say, for instance, that I make a Quake Mod based on the 3.5E rules. The Quake format for the source code, even if I distributed the raw source, would render most of these rules illegible to the common man. If, however, I included a copy of the SRD and any other OGC I used in a PDF document that goes into the Mod directory, and included a message in the MOTD or the loading screen, then it would be both human-readable, and clearly indicated. Am I totally off base here, or did I hit the nail on the head? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com ___ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
RE: [Ogf-l] understanding the D20 licensing
OK, Had to stick this into the argument, here... 1) The "kernel" If WOTC (and the mass of gamers) could afford to have monthly updates to the core rulebooks, they would. BUT... the large majority of gamers that i know are complaining about the upgrade to 3.5 because of the cost. 2) Dragon Magazine is (according to the cover, as if there was ever any doubt) "100% Official" Therefore, it's as close as it comes to the montly updates, and each and every game wherein the DM or one of the players has a subscription benefits from the many monkeys. woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 17:08 -0700 7/21/03, Fred wrote:>--- woodelf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:it's still not being incorporated into "the kernel". not saying it never will, but until WotC decides to take all that cool OGC floating around out there and make the next version of D&D the latest, cutting-edge game they can, using the very best ideas out there, D&D itself isn't directly benefitting from open-source development. Indirectly, sure, from the whole "network externalities" thing. But not from the "many monkeys" thing.and since WotC doesn't own Dragon any more, it's even less like reworking the core stuff than it would've been had a WotC-owned Dragon published unofficial game stuff.-- "I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature."-- Thomas Jefferson |\ /| |\ |\ \ / /\ \| |><| |\/| |\ |\/| | X | |/ |\ X \/ | | | | | |/ | | |/ \| |\ | / \ /\ |\ | | | | |\ | | Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
