Any computer assistance for this game yet?

[Bobson]

After I saw your post that you had gotten permission to release your software, I assumed there had been some change in the matter. I sent another e-mail asking for permission to release, on a non-commercial free of charge basis, a trade calculator I'd written and that I would happily comply with any requirements they had for attribution and disclaimers. The reply, in its entirety was:

"I am afraid we cannot give permission for this just yet, due to licensing restrictions. However, please keep an eye on our forums in case this changes."

Cue confused stare at my inbox.

I do understand that if Mongoose's license for Traveller from the rights-holder does not cover software, then that's it, and no hard feelings. They have to abide by the terms of their contract and I respect that. I'm also happy someone has been able to get permission to release software for the game. I would be even happier if I could figure out the rhyme or reason to it.

That is bizarre. Really, really bizarre. I'll email the guy who approved me and ask him to take a look at your post - I'll see if he has any input.

 

[Infojunky]

I may not be following your thinking here. The FFE Fair Use Policy is reasonably clear:

"If your activity is non-commercial, you can make copies to support playing the game, you can scan copies for your computer, you can write short programs and spreadsheets which automate processes within the game."

The specific thought is Mongoose is basicly saying that game utility software is outside of their license, thus any questions should go to the granter of said license.

 

[wombatzoner]

The specific thought is Mongoose is basicly saying that game utility software is outside of their license, thus any questions should go to the granter of said license.

The idea is not without merit, but at this stage I would feel presumptuous trying to inject myself between the rights-holder and and the licensee over the terms of their license agreement. I'm hoping this thread and some of the inquiries others have made will eventually yield a clearer answer on what is/isn't allowed and why.

 

[Infojunky]

The specific thought is Mongoose is basicly saying that game utility software is outside of their license, thus any questions should go to the granter of said license.

The idea is not without merit, but at this stage I would feel presumptuous trying to inject myself between the rights-holder and and the licensee over the terms of their license agreement. I'm hoping this thread and some of the inquiries others have made will eventually yield a clearer answer on what is/isn't allowed and why.

Understood, I just believe that this is a subject that was over looked.....

With all that, much of the previous Traveller "Canon" is unchanged so a vast amount of software to support the game can still be written.

 

[Bobson]

I'm also happy someone has been able to get permission to release software for the game. I would be even happier if I could figure out the rhyme or reason to it.

That is bizarre. Really, really bizarre. I'll email the guy who approved me and ask him to take a look at your post - I'll see if he has any input.

Well, unfortunately, it seems like I should have left well enough alone and just left the confusion. When I asked, they told me that "on reflection, I believe we have to be more even-handed in our application of software licensing, so I am afraid I must retract our earlier permission on your software." So, I'll be pulling my scripts down tonight.

I'd just finished adding the "paste UWP into trade app" functionality too.

 

[wombatzoner]

Well, damn.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this to screw things up for your software. Now I wish I'd just kept my mouth shut.

Did their response give any inkling if this was due to the terms of their license with FFE or due to the license they've elected to release Mongoose Traveller under?

 

[Bobson]

Well, damn.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for this to screw things up for your software. Now I wish I'd just kept my mouth shut.

Did their response give any inkling if this was due to the terms of their license with FFE or due to the license they've elected to release Mongoose Traveller under?

It's not your fault - I could have just told you to ask, rather than asking myself.

They didn't give me any indication of the reason, but I did notice that the SRD is released under the OGL (see the developer pack), and the OGL specifically allows software. So I'm still waiting on a clarification on that.

 

[Bobson]

Ok, I finally have an official response form Mongoose about software.

Using the OGL (and nothing but), you can do pretty much what you like, so long as you don't mention Traveller at all. And we would be okay with that.

I am compelled at this point to mention that there is some disagreement (as I understand it) about how the OGL affects software. There's this FAQ, which states that

NOTE: The biggest problem we've found with software and the OGL is that programmers aren't paying attention to Section 8 of the OGL. Section 8 states: "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content." This doesn't mean you can say "all rules in my program are Open", the users need to be able to see all that Open Content. You can do this by putting Open Content in a format that is easy to understand. Popular solutions have been to place everything in text files that the program pulls info from, having everything in a viewable database within the software, using Java script on a webpage (viewing the source of the webpage will display the code and Java script is relatively easy for a user to interpret). The key is that the user has to see everything that is Open Content that the program uses and be able to understand it without too much effort. The whole point of the OGL is that once information is declared Open everyone has free access to it under the OGL. Compiling that information into a program denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming License.

.

There's also this thread which discusses the issue. I've also found a couple other links and my conclusion is that there is no real conclusion to be drawn.

That being said, I've started working out how I'm going to attempt to comply with the OGL when I re-release my software. If anyone else here has suggestions or relevant experience, feel free to chime in.

 

[EDG]

NOTE: The biggest problem we've found with software and the OGL is that programmers aren't paying attention to Section 8 of the OGL. Section 8 states: "If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Content." This doesn't mean you can say "all rules in my program are Open", the users need to be able to see all that Open Content. You can do this by putting Open Content in a format that is easy to understand. Popular solutions have been to place everything in text files that the program pulls info from, having everything in a viewable database within the software, using Java script on a webpage (viewing the source of the webpage will display the code and Java script is relatively easy for a user to interpret). The key is that the user has to see everything that is Open Content that the program uses and be able to understand it without too much effort. The whole point of the OGL is that once information is declared Open everyone has free access to it under the OGL. Compiling that information into a program denies the user that access and violates the spirit of the Open Gaming License.

.

But... that could also mean that if you are using information in the program that is already open content, you can just refer the users to THAT open content rather than publish it again yourself, right?

So if you're using a character table from Mongoose's OGL, then you can just point the user to the relevant page in the SRD, right? You'd only have to put what you use in your program if it wasn't open anywhere else.

That's how I read it anyway...

 

[FreeTrav]

I think EDG's interpretation is reasonable, and I also think that the interpretation that leads to text-based data files is reasonable - and as far as the rules being 'compiled' into the program goes, MY interpretation would be that making the properly-commented source available would be sufficient to comply with the requisite clauses in the OGL.

Obviously, none of this is certain until it is formally tested.

 

[EDG]

I think EDG's interpretation is reasonable, and I also think that the interpretation that leads to text-based data files is reasonable - and as far as the rules being 'compiled' into the program goes, MY interpretation would be that making the properly-commented source available would be sufficient to comply with the requisite clauses in the OGL.

Obviously, none of this is certain until it is formally tested.

I wouldn't make any part of the program open source as a result of this particular OGL requirement. It's one thing if one wants to make a program that one writes completely open source anyway, but there's no obligation to make any code open source just because of the Traveller OGL.

In other words, you can could make the data that the progam refers to open source if it is actually Open Content (or if it's new and you want it to be Open Content), but the actual code that you write absolutely doesn't have to be Open Content.

 

[FreeTrav]

In other words, you can could make the data that the progam refers to open source if it is actually Open Content (or if it's new and you want it to be Open Content), but the actual code that you write absolutely doesn't have to be Open Content.

I think we're talking about two different things here - data (you) and rules (me). If a specific procedure is OGC, and I implement that procedure in code, then it would seem to me that the terms of the OGL would require that I identify that code - and the only sensible way I can see to do that is to make the properly-commented source available.

It's questionable whether rules themselves - as opposed to a particular expression thereof - can be protected as intellectual property at all, but given the generally high level of success that Hasbro and their corporate predecessors have had in keeping e.g., clones of Monopoly and Scrabble off the market, erring on the side of caution may be indicated.

 

[Bobson]

I think EDG's interpretation is reasonable, and I also think that the interpretation that leads to text-based data files is reasonable - and as far as the rules being 'compiled' into the program goes, MY interpretation would be that making the properly-commented source available would be sufficient to comply with the requisite clauses in the OGL.

Obviously, none of this is certain until it is formally tested.

I wouldn't make any part of the program open source as a result of this particular OGL requirement. It's one thing if one wants to make a program that one writes completely open source anyway, but there's no obligation to make any code open source just because of the Traveller OGL.

In other words, you can could make the data that the progam refers to open source if it is actually Open Content (or if it's new and you want it to be Open Content), but the actual code that you write absolutely doesn't have to be Open Content.

I see five ways to designate OGL content that I, personally, would feel are sufficient (and I'm not a lawyer, so no idea how well these would stand up to a challenge):

• Mark all OGL text when it appears on screen (such as a different font color). Indicate that all such text is OGL.
• Create a human-readable file with the exact same content, and state that anything in that file that's also in the app is OGL (this has update-sync issues, though)
• Create a human-readable include file which contains all the OGL text strings and assigns them into descriptive variables, which you then use in your code (this is fairly standard for anything that can be localized into other languages)
• Create a format for human-readable files (like PCGen did) and write a parser for it.
• Release your source code publicly, with heavy commenting that indicates which code is using data from a OGL source. (You don't have to release the code under a license that grants reuse, I wouldn't think, but it has to be viewable)

I'm sure there are other solutions, and I don't think any reasonable attempt is likely to cause problems.

 

[EDG]

I think we're talking about two different things here - data (you) and rules (me). If a specific procedure is OGC, and I implement that procedure in code, then it would seem to me that the terms of the OGL would require that I identify that code - and the only sensible way I can see to do that is to make the properly-commented source available.

I think you'd be incorrect in assuming that. The rules that are used are Open Content. The OGL requires that "users need to be able to see all that Open Content" - not that they need to see how you've implemented it in your code, just that they need to see what rules content is actually Open Content. So if say, a UWP Atmosphere types table is open content then you need to make that content available as open content (or point the user to another source that has it as open content, like the SRD).

But it makes no sense to me (from a legal standpoint) to force people to make their actual programming code available as Open Content, because that is nothing to do with the OGL. It doesn't demand that authors make their entire books available as Open Content just because part of the books is Open Content, so why should a programmer be forced to make their whole code Open Content just because they use Open Content in some parts of it?

 

[FreeTrav]

I think we're talking about two different things here - data (you) and rules (me). If a specific procedure is OGC, and I implement that procedure in code, then it would seem to me that the terms of the OGL would require that I identify that code - and the only sensible way I can see to do that is to make the properly-commented source available.

I think you'd be incorrect in assuming that. The rules that are used are Open Content. The OGL requires that "users need to be able to see all that Open Content" - not that they need to see how you've implemented it in your code, just that they need to see what rules content is actually Open Content. So if say, a UWP Atmosphere types table is open content then you need to make that content available as open content (or point the user to another source that has it as open content, like the SRD).

But it makes no sense to me (from a legal standpoint) to force people to make their actual programming code available as Open Content, because that is nothing to do with the OGL. It doesn't demand that authors make their entire books available as Open Content just because part of the books is Open Content, so why should a programmer be forced to make their whole code Open Content just because they use Open Content in some parts of it?

Data is not process. Let me repeat that: Data is not process.

The atmosphere types table is data. The instructions "Roll 2D6-2+SIZE and look up the result on the Atmosphere Types Table" is procedure/process.

If the process is Open Content, then I must, by the terms of the OGL, make available the code that implements that process, as it appears that merely saying "I am using the following OC from the following sources" is insufficient. That's separate from any tabular OC data that I also have to make available.

Unless the OGL is viral, like the GPL or CC:SA licenses, it doesn't mean I have to allow anyone else to use my code, because my code is not the original OC; it is an implementation of the OC. I refer you back to Bobson's post quoting from the FAQ in reference to §8 - one specific example was 'using Javascript on a web page' - that's making the OC available for the user to see, when the OC is implemented in code rather than merely as tabular data. By extension, if I do not write the code in Javascript, but in a compiled or interpreted language that is not browser-based, I need to make the source - of at least the OC procedures - available so that the user can see the OC in my program. And even then, it is arguable - also from that same section of the FAQ - that a compiled program cannot be valid under OGL, though an interpreted one can be.

 

[EDG]

Again, this section from the OGL quoted above seems to prove you wrong:

The key is that the user has to see everything that is Open Content that the program uses and be able to understand it without too much effort.

They even say you can make the data available as tables in human-readable form. They only say you can make the code available if fairly understandable... but it's not the only way to do it. You can make it available as a data table, as a separate file, as code... as any way you like, as long as you make it available in a form that is understandable. That's pretty clear - you have no obligation to make the code that implements the process available at all. You just have an obligation to make the material that is Open Content available and accessible in any form that is understandable by humans.

So in your example, if you have compiled code that is not human-readable, you can just have a text file that includes the Open Content rules that you are using in the program - you don't have to show that as the source code (though you can if you want, but if this is anything commercial you're just shooting yourself in the foot if you do), you can just present the material as game rules. Again, that's pretty clear from the quote I highlighted here.

My point however was that you don't even need to explain anything, so long as the material has already been made available as Open Content somewhere else in a readily accessible form (e.g. the SRD). In that case, you can just point them to the relevant location in the SRD.

 

[FreeTrav]

EDG: I am done with this subthread on the OGL. We disagree as to interpretation, and until it is tested in court, there will be no way to prove which of us is right. By your interpretation, it seems, all I need to do is include with my program distribution a cut-down version of the SRD - or a list of sections of the SRD and a URL to where the SRD can be obtained - in a text file, and I'm good. I don't think that the publisher of the SRD, the authors of the OGL, or the courts would agree, based on my prior readings in connection with IP law. I think you are trying to play rules lawyer, and you are not the referee. It is clear that we will not agree, absent some sort of final ruling. You go right ahead and release your software according to your interpretation, and pursue your interpretation through the legal system as far as needed. I will eagerly await the final verdict on your interpretation.

 

[EDG]

EDG: I am done with this subthread on the OGL. We disagree as to interpretation, and until it is tested in court, there will be no way to prove which of us is right. By your interpretation, it seems, all I need to do is include with my program distribution a cut-down version of the SRD - or a list of sections of the SRD and a URL to where the SRD can be obtained - in a text file, and I'm good. I don't think that the publisher of the SRD, the authors of the OGL, or the courts would agree, based on my prior readings in connection with IP law. I think you are trying to play rules lawyer, and you are not the referee. It is clear that we will not agree, absent some sort of final ruling. You go right ahead and release your software according to your interpretation, and pursue your interpretation through the legal system as far as needed. I will eagerly await the final verdict on your interpretation.

Eh? It's not like you have any more authority on the matter than I have. You're taking one specific example out of the OGL (the javascript example) and ignoring everything else around it that clearly states that you don't need to make a program's source code available.

If anyone releases anything, they should check it with Mongoose first and then they'll get a proper answer (or at least, their interpretation of the OGL license). Nobody's said anything about charging ahead and doing whatever they want and hoping that they're right.

 

[Bobson]

I've started working out how I'm going to attempt to comply with the OGL when I re-release my software. If anyone else here has suggestions or relevant experience, feel free to chime in.

It's taken longer than I anticipated, mostly because I've had other things to deal with, but the Planet Generator is back, using only SRD data (no rules for temperature or minimum tech level needed to survive on a given world). The trade calculator will be coming shortly, now that I have all the structures I need built.

Interestingly, a lot of my code is now much more streamlined, since I replaced large switch() statements and if (A and B and C) statements with lookups from the data file. Not that it was that complicated before - the planet tool is pretty simple.