How do you improve the OGL?

[grislyeye]

Is it because of limited programming language?

I'm not sure I understand your question?

Yeah umm, that particular FAQ query you quoted here, has nothing to do with OGL. It's about what WotC CAN do WITHOUT the OGL. Have you ever wondered why they can publish the PHB without attaching a copy of the OGL in it?

Yeah, umm, did you read my post? To be clear, my point was, why do WotC need to explictly mention that only they can license computer games, when the OGL should allow this?

Try this Software FAQ page: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?...glfaq/20040123i

That's not the Software FAQ, but the general d20/OGL FAQ page. The Software FAQ does cover OGL-software related issues.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm not sure I understand your question?

Let me try a different approach:

You say that "the performance and design issues might make [a game software] practically impossible." Can you elaborate or give me an example?

Yeah, umm, did you read my post? To be clear, my point was, why do WotC need to explictly mention that only they can license computer games, when the OGL should allow this?

I honestly think you're reading too much into that answer you quoted from a different FAQ. Again, it's what WotC can do without having to use the OGL, since they created the core d20 ruleset. Third-party companies without an exclusive agreement with WotC will have to use the OGL, if they want to developed an SRD-based game software.

 

[grislyeye]

You say that "the performance and design issues might make [a game software] practically impossible." Can you elaborate or give me an example?

An example? How do you mean? There are no examples, as no-one has actually created a computer game using the OGL.

Let me clearer: the reason source code is compiled is that it is optimised, faster and performant. If you can't compile your game rules into optimised binary code, then it hits performance. If you must ensure you're rules are "human readable" that affects the design of your game. Modern games, such as 3D MMORPGS, rely heavily on these optimisations, especially if their calculating rule mechanics all the time. So, while WotC may allow computer games, the restrictions on software distribution may make this impossible for modern computer game for all intents and purposes.

I honestly think you're reading too much into that answer you quoted from a different FAQ.

Your'e entitled to your opinion. I don't know how to square the fact that they mention it at all.

 

[Nellisir]

An ability, in the product itself, of where a mechanic came from?

If I got a feat from Bob's Book of Feats, and use it in my Feat Anthology, I'd like to point out where it came from.

What if you rewrite part of the feat? What if you take 2 similar races from different products and combine their abilities? Do you have to identify which part of the feat you modified, or which source each individual ability came from?

I don't have a problem with it as long as it's optional. If it's mandatory, it'd be a nightmare.

 

[kingpaul]

I don't have a problem with it as long as it's optional. If it's mandatory, it'd be a nightmare.

I'm talking optional.

 

[Ranger REG]

Let me clearer: the reason source code is compiled is that it is optimised, faster and performant. If you can't compile your game rules into optimised binary code, then it hits performance. If you must ensure you're rules are "human readable" that affects the design of your game. Modern games, such as 3D MMORPGS, rely heavily on these optimisations, especially if their calculating rule mechanics all the time. So, while WotC may allow computer games, the restrictions on software distribution may make this impossible for modern computer game for all intents and purposes.

I thought the "human readable" part refers to what we humans would "read" on the monitor screen or on printed hardcopies.

Granted, converting SRD material into binary [data?] code would still fall under the definition of "Use" in the OGL (Section 1 Definitions). That would mean that other programmers should also have the priviliege of using said binary OGC as much as writers are now Using the existing print OGC.

Your'e entitled to your opinion. I don't know how to square the fact that they mention it at all.

FWIW, I'm getting a kick out of you trying to wrap your head around it.

J/K.

 

[Nellisir]

I'm talking optional.

What if you attributed it incorrectly, or the creator did not want to be cited?

 

[Planesdragon]

It's deja vu all over again.

Wow. We move to a new forum, and all of the OGF-L topics come up again.

Let me cover a few things here, as I recall from being in the heat of the OGF-L discussions WAY back to my first day of replying to a dozen threads at once in one day.

1. The OGL does not preclude software. It is, however, incompatible with most software licenses. But if you have free title to write and re-license software in a language, you can release your program under the OGL. No body has done this because there's no money in it--as was noted, it's not "motion for dismissal" simple if Wizards says "no", which means that it's a trial if they decide they don't want you to do it, even if you have the legal right to.
   
   But, if all you want to do is write a dice-roller or a character creator or somesuch and release it, go ahead. Use a scripting language--any scripting language, not just JavaScript--or just include the full source code. Ideally, do a Gentoo-style release, where you give them the source code and a compiler. (Heh.)
   
   
2. The OGL is based on US Contract Law. It was written by Wizards of the Coast. Where it is ambiguous, it's interpreted in our favor, not Wizards of the Coast's. If you wanted to release your work as a printed book, a PDF, a web page, a PowerPoint presentation, a spoken-word poem, or anything else that your lawyer can argue is a "derivative work", Wizards of the Coast can not stop you. It's nice that WotC has an FAQ, but all that does is give you high-school level "motion for dismisal" level permission for those things. If it's not in the FAQ, you can still do it -- you just need to find a lawyer and be sure. (Or, just ask them. In the past they've been very open about what they do and don't want the community doing with the OGL.)
   
   
3. The major limitation of the OGL is the inability to specify where someone else's OGC is. If I wanted to use something from nearly any second-generation product, I'd have to use the entire Section 15 of that product, even if I only used a tiny bit of the content and it was a small change made to someone else's idea.

 

[Planesdragon]

Granted, converting SRD material into binary [data?] code would still fall under the definition of "Use" in the OGL (Section 1 Definitions). That would mean that other programmers should also have the priviliege of using said binary OGC as much as writers are now Using the existing print OGC.

That's the hazard. If all you give a programmer is a compiled file, you haven't given him something that can be derived from. You've jumped right out of what Ryan and Clark have called the "safe harbor", and got yourself a trial waiting to happen.

One solution to the problem is to have the OGL-derived part of your program entirely in a standard data format. At least one program used XML files, but I could see a good argument for using an unprotected database file, especially if you indicate what database format you're using.

 

[Nellisir]

[*]The major limitation of the OGL is the inability to specify where someone else's OGC is. If I wanted to use something from nearly any second-generation product, I'd have to use the entire Section 15 of that product, even if I only used a tiny bit of the content and it was a small change made to someone else's idea.

People keep bringing this up, and I -still- don't see how this will be anything other than an dog-awful, unholy mess. People can't handle the Section 15 as it is, and adding another layer of attributation for them to screw up, misinterpret, and copy incorrectly is going to make an even bigger mess down the road. (Never mind the people who don't want to be attributed, or who don't want to be attributed in -that- book.)