D20 Sourcecode

[Twin Rose]

I am going to have to go with CRGreathouse on this one. As long as the OGC is somehow clearly identified then it should be legal. And I would say marking in the source code and then distributing both the source code and the compiled code would count. I think if you commented the code heavily and maybe included a design document so that it would be easy for a programmer to figure out were the OGC sections fit in with the program. Some compilers would probably even let you distribute a break point file, in which you could have break points pre-set for all the OGC sections. Clark would probably be the best to ask about this one.

If you believe so, and you have a strong legal case to prove this then you can take it to a lawyer and discuss it with them. At this point, however, I'm more willing to go with the Wizard's of the Coast position and say that is what they believe. I have no desire, or need, to go to court with them on the matter. I am not a lawyer, and this is just my thoughts, and it seems to me that if you go with the flow and accept what they decide, it's better all around.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Wizard's of the Coast position

Where is this policy described, anyway? I searched the Wizards d20 site extensively, both by following their links and hitting it with search engines. I found nothing like what you describe. The only reference I found at all to 'source code' is Mr. Dancey's MDCiG:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e

I'd like to know about this, since (1) I may release compiled product in the future, and (2) I know there are those who so do.

(I'd appreciate a link, if you have one, but a posted copy would at least sate my curiosity.)

 

[Twin Rose]

Where is this policy described, anyway? I searched the Wizards d20 site extensively, both by following their links and hitting it with search engines. I found nothing like what you describe. The only reference I found at all to 'source code' is Mr. Dancey's MDCiG:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/md/md20020228e

I'd like to know about this, since (1) I may release compiled product in the future, and (2) I know there are those who so do.

(I'd appreciate a link, if you have one, but a posted copy would at least sate my curiosity.)

It's been discussed excessively on the OGF mailing list, and in person, and in other forms of email and things. The determination was simply that just because a user has the source code, tehre is no way for anyone to point to a specific part of the compiled executable without the use of hex-editors to say, "here it is... Right here."

Believe me, this is something i tried once upon a time to do, and it simply did not wash.

 

[smetzger]

It's been discussed excessively on the OGF mailing list, and in person, and in other forms of email and things. The determination was simply that just because a user has the source code, tehre is no way for anyone to point to a specific part of the compiled executable without the use of hex-editors to say, "here it is... Right here."

Believe me, this is something i tried once upon a time to do, and it simply did not wash.

3 different strategies:
1. You shouldn't have to point to a particular part of the executable binary code and say this is OGC. Why couldn't you release the source code as OGC and the binary code as IP? Obviously this would be difficult if anything in the source code used someone elses OGC (including the SRD), but it should be possible.

2. I don't think it would be any different from a print publisher publishing his whole product and then at the back of the product he reproduces everything that is OGC and says "everything here is OGC". Once again difficult since the publisher couldn't put any OGC material that he didn't create himself in the non-OGC section.

3. Also, if you designate the whole thing as OGC, that would certainly be easy to identify. Of course if you want to make money off of it, this may not be the wisest choice.

So, points 1 & 2 would be very difficult to do with a useful software program. Point 3 would be pretty much an OGL product that couldn't include a description of character advancement.

Still point 3 could be useful for say a library of d20 functions. You could release a DLL with functions that would output a standard statblock, a charcter in XML format, etc.

And if you could do that you could divide your program up and put all the OGC code in a DLL and then mark that whole DLL as Open Content and its source code. Not human readable (which is in the FAQ but not the license) but is clearly identified (which is in the license).

 

[Vicegrip]

[[ Yes, JavaScript. It runs on web pages, cross-platform compatible, lightweight, and fast enough for my needs. What more could I ask for? ]]
--Well, you could ask for it not to be client side. Apart from the fact that client side code kinda blows IMO, it's also right there for the user to look at and use if they wish.

 

[CRGreathouse]

It's been discussed excessively on the OGF mailing list, and in person, and in other forms of email and things. The determination was simply that just because a user has the source code, tehre is no way for anyone to point to a specific part of the compiled executable without the use of hex-editors to say, "here it is... Right here."

Ah ha! I found the part of the WotC OGL FAQ that states that distributing the source code is sufficient:

Q: I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that
possible

"A: Yes, it's certainly possible. The most significant thing that will
impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the
right to
extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your
application,
and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open
Game
Content.

There are two obvious ways of doing so. The first is to distribute the
source code that contains Open Game Content in a human-readable
format. The
second is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content
sits
in human-readable data files that are read and processed by your
application at runtime."

I also looked through the mailing list archives, and found a number of messages supporting my viewpoint, that is, software under the OGL is possible even when compiled to include data.

 

[CRGreathouse]

[[ Yes, JavaScript. It runs on web pages, cross-platform compatible, lightweight, and fast enough for my needs. What more could I ask for? ]]
--Well, you could ask for it not to be client side. Apart from the fact that client side code kinda blows IMO, it's also right there for the user to look at and use if they wish.

Oh no, oh goodness no! If it were server-side, I'd have trouble with the OGL... since it's client-side, it's easy to cover.