DM Genie

[Luke]

There's a way to get around this: declare the entire binary OGC. Of course, this generally requires you to own all of the libraries and causes problems of its own, but...

You still can't put anything derived from the SRD (the core rules) into compiled a binary (if you plan to distribute it in some way).

I'm not sure about putting any of your own new material (that isn't an SRD derivation) into a binary. By it's very nature Open Game Content, and binary tend to be mutually exclusive. It still isn't clearly identified (in human readable format).

Clearly identified seems to be the crux of the problem. A compiled binary tends to bring together non-game material (user interfaces and other things), along with core SRD (which is necessarily open), and SRD derivations (which is necessarily open), and finally, possibly completely new material (such as a new setting, which is either open or closed, at the author's discretion).
In binary form, none of these different portions is necessarily clearly identified from each other.
Finally, Wizards have provided the SRD to you as open, with the condition that anything you derive from directly is also open. That is to say, you were able to make use of Wizard's intellectual propoerty, and your distributed derivation must also be just as usable by others. Human readable content (such as scripts) satisfy this, but a compiled binary doesn't (others can't derive from it).

 

[Sm!rk]

How about including the license as a string somewhere in your code, const char * etc. Then including an app like string from Unix which will output all the strings in a binary, which in this case will also output the OGC license?

 

[Luke]

How about including the license as a string somewhere in your code, const char * etc. Then including an app like string from Unix which will output all the strings in a binary, which in this case will also output the OGC license?

As long as it picked out *every* SRD and derivation thereof in the binary and output that as well

 

[Fractalwave]

If you check out the official OGL list archives, this issue has been re-opened many times. It's the "dead horse that won't die".

Wizard's position is pretty much that:
- "Clearly marked" effectively means human readable. The license and content is for humans.

- Your OGC code must live up to this as well. You simply cannot compile a program with OGC code buried in there. Even separately including your source doesn't get you off the hook.

I agree that it's an unexpected point that will badly catch developers who've never delved deeply enough into the "official" information pipelines - but there it is.

Their position is pretty clear. If you want to contest the interpretation Wizard's put on the license, I gather you end up doing it in court.
I really hope that such a thing never happens. What Wizard's have done with the the whole open gaming/3rd edition scenario is a wonderful gift that has worked very well for both them and the RPG community.
After all the effort I put into RPM over the last 1.5 years, the "gentleman's agreement" behind the draft SRD really worried me, but I have to say that Wizard's have come through at every level!

Regards,

You're absolutely right about this Luke. People are being given a wealth of information in this thread. It'll be interesting to see what they do with it.

One caveat regarding the OGL lists. The OGL list archives are full of information, though you do need to read them carefully. Just as people are playing 'what if' in this thread that is done there to a much larger degree. You can learn a lot in those lists. But don't make the mistake of assuming it's all correct.

What I see happening with RPG programming tools is:

People are programming without taking the licenses into account.
Ignorance is no excuse. And ignorance is easily overcome by just a little bit of research. I'm not sure what that says about programmers who don't do the research.

People are programming in such a manner that the licenses are attacked.
This is just a general attitude taken by some. I don't recommend this for several reasons. It makes you look like you don't give a hoot about the licenses and just want to abuse them. This is very much a gaming 'community' and attacking anything will result in a backlash of some form. You'll have a very difficult time digging yourself out of the hole of a reputation you give yourself if you do this. Also, I don't recommend this method unless you intend to take on WotC/Hasbro legally which would mean you need the resources to do so.

People are programming in a manner where they are doing their very best to comply with licenses.
This is the best option as it's actually good for the entire community.

So if it's advice you're wanting, here it is in a nutshell.

Do the research. Assume an attitude of interpretation where if it was your license what's the most rigid interpretation you could give it. Then work from that point.

If you come up with something that's questionable according to that point of view then it's probably questionable according to WotC's point of view. At that point, you have two choices. You can do it anyway while entering into a series of discussions with WotC to prove your point. Or you can back off and come up with something else.

I will say that there are some issues that we at Twin Rose Software chose to push. We won some and we lost some. Such is life. You move on. Just remember that the ultimate group of people you must satisfy in order to use the OGL and/or the D20 license work for WotC. And working WITH them will be much better for you and the community in the long run.

 

[smetzger]

I'm not sure about putting any of your own new material (that isn't an SRD derivation) into a binary. By it's very nature Open Game Content, and binary tend to be mutually exclusive. It still isn't clearly identified (in human readable format).

Clearly identified seems to be the crux of the problem. A compiled binary tends to bring together non-game material (user interfaces and other things), along with core SRD (which is necessarily open), and SRD derivations (which is necessarily open), and finally, possibly completely new material (such as a new setting, which is either open or closed, at the author's discretion).

I still fail to see why you couldn't just say "This whole program and all the data files are OGC." As long as you only included 3rd party material that was in fact OGC. You have just opened up the door for anyone to take your binary file and use it just as they would any other OGC material. I think its just the same as when a 3rd party publisher says "anything derived from the SRD is OGC."

Besides Binary is human readable. PDF files are binary so why not an executable program that needs a Windows OS to 'read' the binary code instead of Acrobat Reader to 'read' the binary PDF.

If WOTC wants to further define what is and what is not clearly identifiable they should come out with a new license for d20.

 

[Luke]

Besides Binary is human readable. PDF files are binary so why not an executable program that needs a Windows OS to 'read' the binary code instead of Acrobat Reader to 'read' the binary PDF.

Well, you could say that everything is binary (coded as ones and zeros), but a subset of that is ascii that makes sense to a human reading.
PDFs are binary, but they're also human readable, as are word documents.
A program like RPM has database tables that have SRD content in binary format (internal integer, floating point numbers, and even rick-text format descriptions that are not strictly human readable).The point is that RPM also comes with a method that reveals every piece of SRD (and SRD-derived ) content in a human readable format. This is in the form of tabale table viewers, and script viewers.
The content is still open, and you could copy and paste anything to make use of it.

 

[Anakyne]

Very interesting thread... and one by witch I'm deeply concerned. I am about to start developping my own OGC/D20 application. I have plan it for a while and have started coding... My main concern remains with the respect of the OGL.

I have made several choices for my implementation (db-base, non-db-base, etc) and one of my main concern is how I could dynamically add methods/procedures within my application at runtime considering my development environment.

I don't plan on having a database or datafiles containing the OGC content ! I would like to implements the information within my code in Classes. Now considering the current thread, this would be against the OGL.

However, since my endeavour is not commercial, what if I distribute the complete source code freely and explain to users how to install the development environment (freely available), load the code and compile their own version ?

(regards to dmgenie software author, I work in the city where he live

 

[Luke]

However, since my endeavour is not commercial, what if I distribute the complete source code freely and explain to users how to install the development environment (freely available), load the code and compile their own version ?

(regards to dmgenie software author, I work in the city where he live

I can definitely tell you that it's irrelevant whether or not your application is commercial.

Quite probably, though, you could distribute your source code, but you wouldn't be able to distribute a binary with it, or make a binary available to anyone.
Anyone who wanted to use your stuff would have to set up their own development environment and compile it themselves, as you suggest.

Do you suspect that given all the hassle and issues with being able to supply a decent program that doesn't rely on decent 3rd party components (which you are unlikely to be able to provide with your source), that you'll actually offer something better than is already available?

 

[Fractalwave]

However, since my endeavour is not commercial, what if I distribute the complete source code freely and explain to users how to install the development environment (freely available), load the code and compile their own version ?

There are other considerations, as well, that are discussed on the OGF lists and apply to programming specifically.

One item that comes to mind is license compatibility. Using software libraries and licenses can make the material in the program be considered to be derivative of those libraries and licenses. It depends on how the particular software license you use reads. Almost all licenses that are open have a little clause in them that talks about how no other license can apply. Other licenses talk about when the program you write is considered to be derivative of their libraries, etc.

So you must be careful about which you use and whether they allow you to comply with the license(s) from WotC that you are using. One thread ended with a serious discussion as to whether publishing PDF's was not compliant with WotC's licenses and why. And yes, that's an extreme example.

I'm not going to go into details. This discussion has been killed several times on the OGF lists and it won't die. At this point it can get to be very complicated and I highly recommend that you go to the archives of the OGF lists for the technical discussions.

 

[CRGreathouse]

You still can't put anything derived from the SRD (the core rules) into compiled a binary (if you plan to distribute it in some way).

I'm not sure about putting any of your own new material (that isn't an SRD derivation) into a binary. By it's very nature Open Game Content, and binary tend to be mutually exclusive. It still isn't clearly identified (in human readable format).

Clearly identified seems to be the crux of the problem. A compiled binary tends to bring together non-game material (user interfaces and other things), along with core SRD (which is necessarily open), and SRD derivations (which is necessarily open), and finally, possibly completely new material (such as a new setting, which is either open or closed, at the author's discretion).
In binary form, none of these different portions is necessarily clearly identified from each other.
Finally, Wizards have provided the SRD to you as open, with the condition that anything you derive from directly is also open. That is to say, you were able to make use of Wizard's intellectual propoerty, and your distributed derivation must also be just as usable by others. Human readable content (such as scripts) satisfy this, but a compiled binary doesn't (others can't derive from it).

OGC doesn't need to be human readable. Releasing an entire binary as OGC is fine, assuming you have the legal right to so release it and don't mind that anyone can distribute the binary.