FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
You are correct. I was wrong. I read up more on open source software. There can be some requirements in place and something can still be open. Generally in open source software this would be differentiated by calling one more permissive and the other less permissive. That said openness is generally connotated with quite a bit of permissiveness - and thus at some point being to restrictive would cause people to stop calling something open. I no longer believe the few restrictions in OGL 1.0/1.0a make it so unpermissive that it ceases to be open.maybe I do, it does not mean public domain. Any open license comes with restrictions by its very nature. None of the ones the OGL 1.0 has make it not an open license.
Do you agree that at some point having too many/too strict of requirements can mean something is not open?So let’s cut to the chase again, show me the clause in the OGL that makes it not an open license and what condition of an open license definition it violates.