DM Genie

[Berk]

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.

What if I were to do the following:

1) Write the program in a language like Python, which is compiled on demand (hence I wouldn't need to ditribute a binary, it's made for the user of the software on the fly the first time the code is used)

2) Released all the source code as OGL and/or D20. (Which one give me access to the most rules/supplements base?) I would prefer to release all the code as GPL or LGPL or BSD licensed, but the OGL from what I've read of it would 'do'.

I have been thinking about writing something for a while but without the ability to include a LARGE set of data files it becomes useless.

For instance, I do use FRG magic items, feats and the like in my (NON FRG) campaign world, but NO software currently supports the FRG stuff. So that software effectively becomes useless to me, unless I add it manually which sucks for various reasons.

I don't understand Wizards stance about including equipment stats/rules in data files (either human readable or not). In fact early PCGEN releases encouraged me to buy books, not 'get around buying them'. Just because I know some feat adds to X, or gives me an extra attack doesn't mean I don't want to read the actual entry in the book it was published in.

 

[Luke]

What if I were to do the following:

1) Write the program in a language like Python, which is compiled on demand (hence I wouldn't need to ditribute a binary, it's made for the user of the software on the fly the first time the code is used)

2) Released all the source code as OGL and/or D20. (Which one give me access to the most rules/supplements base?) I would prefer to release all the code as GPL or LGPL or BSD licensed, but the OGL from what I've read of it would 'do'.

I have been thinking about writing something for a while but without the ability to include a LARGE set of data files it becomes useless.

For instance, I do use FRG magic items, feats and the like in my (NON FRG) campaign world, but NO software currently supports the FRG stuff. So that software effectively becomes useless to me, unless I add it manually which sucks for various reasons.

I don't understand Wizards stance about including equipment stats/rules in data files (either human readable or not). In fact early PCGEN releases encouraged me to buy books, not 'get around buying them'. Just because I know some feat adds to X, or gives me an extra attack doesn't mean I don't want to read the actual entry in the book it was published in.

- As long as you don't distribute a binary with SRD game mechanics or info compiled into it, you're okay.

- You can't release any game mechanics source code under any license other than the D20 or OGL ones.

- Choosing between OGL and D20 gives you no advantage on what other source material you can include. Basically using D20 allows you advertise the D20 logo, whereas OGL allows you to do more things in software.

 

[smetzger]

I disagree with Luke on the issue of an OGC Binary. I believe it is allowable under the d20 and OGL license. If you do release a binary under the d20 or OGL, the easiest thing to do is to release it as completly OGC. This would make it very difficult for you to make money off of it because anyone would then be allowed to distribute your program.

 

[Luke]

I disagree with Luke on the issue of an OGC Binary. I believe it is allowable under the d20 and OGL license. If you do release a binary under the d20 or OGL, the easiest thing to do is to release it as completly OGC. This would make it very difficult for you to make money off of it because anyone would then be allowed to distribute your program.

I've been through this many times now. Here is an official quote from Wizards on this board (from the guy at Wizards who sends out the termination notices) :

Originally posted by TheAndy tm
Section 8 of the OGL - Section 8 of the Open Gaming License states that “You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content.” For software “clearly indicated” means that someone has to be able to see all the Open Content. It isn’t enough to say “all rules are Open Content”, someone using that program has to be able to see those rules. The whole point of the OGL is to allow anyone to use Open Content under the license. If that content is compiled into binary, a user can’t access that and use it freely.

Check out the last line. Wizards are very clear about this, and developers don't like it (since it complicates our lives). Believe me - it took me a *lot* of effort to get RPM to the stage its at.

You may choose to ignore the warning, and end up testing it out in court.

 

[palin]

- As long as you don't distribute a binary with SRD game mechanics or info compiled into it, you're okay.

- You can't release any game mechanics source code under any license other than the D20 or OGL ones.

- Choosing between OGL and D20 gives you no advantage on what other source material you can include. Basically using D20 allows you advertise the D20 logo, whereas OGL allows you to do more things in software.

Okay, so If I release the software and data files as OGL I still can't use the rules from say Forgotten Realms or from any of the 'class' books (Tome & Blood, etc), since they are not OGL content.

Which sucks, because again, my own software would be useless to me in the end. Either that or I would need to maintain my own sets of non distrubutable data files, which defeats the whole purpose of Open Source...

P.S. I was the person who wrote the original message you replied to (two above). It was written using my brother's account by accident.