ladyofdragons said:
- could I have a button on each form that will bring up notepad with the uncompiled code for that form, as well as code in all called modules & classes, with OGC-derived content clearly marked? it's not exactly like giving out the source code with the binary, and would be human readable.
There seems to be an easy legal approach to this which is technically challenging, and a technically easy approach which is legally very difficult.
Charles suggests a different easy "silver bullet" where anything is okay, as long as you declare everything open.
If I were to hedge a bet, I'd suggest that the reason PCGen didn't take Charles' easy silver bullet, was because WotC wouldn't wear it.
What I can tell you is that when WotC tested my own software, they wanted to know that changing what I show as SRD-derived scripts actually changed the interpretation of the rules. There was a very strong implication that what I showed as being the SRD-derived content actually needed to be what was being executed. This is another way of saying that distributing source and compiled binary may not be sufficient. You need to execute the source itself. A notepad showing context-sensitive source for binaries is unlikely to be okay. If you think about it, binary and supplied source are different things, and it's only your word that indicates that they are even the same thing.
I've really being trying to avoid saying this, but here goes...
Without putting any names to it (and I'm disinclined to explain this any further):
The originator(s) of the SRD and the OGL behind it were fairly convinced that software of the RolePlayingMaster-type capabilities would never occur - especially from a fan-based effort. Wizard's interpretation of their license was that such an application would throw almost everyone, because of the compiled binary problem.
Guys, from a developer viewpoint - it's not to difficult to knock up a "DM Genie" style app. It's a lot harder to go the RPM/PCGen route, and actually comply with the license.
This whole binary/human-readable problem is the crux of the issue. Wizards did not expect a workable solution to appear from a fan-based effort.
So, you can accept the Wizard's interpretation of their own license implications and try to work with that (yes, it's hard), or you can look for an easy way out, and risk resolving it in court.
As I stated before (as has being echoed by another), I really hope that people work with "the spirit" of the license. This entire possibility from Wizards is a gift, and trying for loopholes in the license does not help the industry.
I can understand that the difficulties are frustrating for those of us who really want to create something they can share with the community. I agree that the whole "clearly indicated/human readable" gotcha can too easily catch out those who start with the best of intentions to follow the license ( aka DM Genie) - but there it is...
Life is easy for "paper" publishers, and a lot harder for software publishers.
I remember the TSR days where anything even remotely like a D&D application landed you threats of court-time. Now, Wizard's have even given you the ability to compete with their own product (E-Tools). I certainly don't blame them for not making it an easy "free-for-all". I suspect that Wizards technically risked millions of dollars worth of intellectual property in going down the whole opening gaming path, to our own advantage, and I'd hate to see a loophole-search somehow succeed in invalidating the concept. Of course, disputes in interpretation are ultimately decided in courts - and I don't think Wizards would lose.
It may seem that this is an easy position for me to adopt, since I am now "vetted" against the license. From the start, though, I made a clear decision to take the hard road, and to work with the license, rather than against it. That made it a very hard road...
Perhaps Wizards could release another version of the OGL. They wouldn't need to give up any restrictions, but could reword a little to make these issues a bit more obvious.