Character Generator

[DMFTodd]

Before E:Tools, when it was just PCGen, the PCGen team didn't care about protecting the copyrighted material that was in your files. But now there are hints that you might encrypt the datasets you previously sent out unprotected. Do I have that right?

 

[smetzger]

Do you mean PI? If so, that info is included in the *.pcc with the LICENSED and LICENSE tags.

Yes and No. The stuff that is released under OGL and you have permission to use the PI, is easy. Now do you include any additional legal stuff that says something like?
"This PI is only allowed to be used in PCGen(I think you would need to mention a specific distro). If you load the text of the PI into any other program its illegal, even if you don't use the program to distribute these files to other users"

As I am sure you know you can't place any additional restrictions on OGC, so the above would specifically have to mention PI.

Now on to the pending WOTC files. These have no OGC and they have no PI. The pages on codemonkey, where these items are being sold, make no reference to restricting the end user from using them in whatever program he wants to use them for. My understanding is that CMP is unsure if such a restriction will be made, but they are currently opening dialog up with WOTC to decide if there should be one.

Keep in mind that any such license may impede the true open source nature of PCGen. If the license allows any program that uses the PCGen code to use the data then its kind of week, why not just let eevryone use it. If the license says only such and such distro of PCGen is authorized to read this data; then it nips the open source nature of PCGen. Sure its still open source but you can't really take the code make some modifications and then re-release it yourself, instead of folding it back into the 'official' distro.

Thanks,
Scott

 

[Hollywood]

Keep in mind that any such license may impede the true open source nature of PCGen. If the license allows any program that uses the PCGen code to use the data then its kind of week, why not just let eevryone use it. If the license says only such and such distro of PCGen is authorized to read this data; then it nips the open source nature of PCGen. Sure its still open source but you can't really take the code make some modifications and then re-release it yourself, instead of folding it back into the 'official' distro.

No, Scott, it does not impede the open source nature of PCGen. PCGen is LGPL'd so it can use other libraries or software under similar or closed lisences to do things such as encryption where nothing but the binaries need to be distributed.

The data used by PCGen is distributed as seperate packages under different lisences that do not effect the license under which PCGen and its source code are distributed [which btw, can be distributed by anyone, i.e. the so-called PCGen Board, CMP, or even yourself or anyone else; all they must do is obey the LGPL lisence].

All of that being said, ONLY if PCGen's source code contains no traces of any OGL'd or proprietary content [which also includes re-interpretations of the game mechanics into computer alogrithms].

But really, how many of the users of PCGen truly care about the open source nature of PCGen? Or are they just happy to have a program that they find useful to use no matter if its closed or open. If you have issues with possible events upcoming, you can always [its pretty easy to] get a dump of the PCGen source [and OGL'd data] from the SourceForge CVS system and start your own variant of it.

If you load the text of the PI into any other program its illegal, even if you don't use the program to distribute these files to other users

Even if the language says that, who cares? Unless the license owner is going to institute some form of compliance checking for individual users, what and how you use the data or PI or anything else for your own personal use is really up to you. Once it goes beyond personal use into distribution, even to friends, it may become an issue that might be worth the lisencees attention. A real world example is all the music trading going on. Convert those cds from the redbook audio to mp3s and play them all you want. Convert mp3s into oggs and play those instead. Use them on all your devices. Make backups. All for personal use. However, once you start distributing that data [the music in redbook, mp3, ogg, wav, au or whatever format] to others you've stepped across the line based on lisences given to you.

 

[Hollywood]

Keep in mind that any such license may impede the true open source nature of PCGen. If the license allows any program that uses the PCGen code to use the data then its kind of week, why not just let eevryone use it. If the license says only such and such distro of PCGen is authorized to read this data; then it nips the open source nature of PCGen. Sure its still open source but you can't really take the code make some modifications and then re-release it yourself, instead of folding it back into the 'official' distro.

No, Scott, it does not impede the open source nature of PCGen. PCGen is LGPL'd so it can use other libraries or software under similar or closed lisences to do things such as encryption where nothing but the binaries need to be distributed.

The data used by PCGen is distributed as seperate packages under different lisences that do not effect the license under which PCGen and its source code are distributed [which btw, can be distributed by anyone, i.e. the so-called PCGen Board, CMP, or even yourself or anyone else; all they must do is obey the LGPL lisence].

All of that being said, ONLY if PCGen's source code contains no traces of any OGL'd or proprietary content [which also includes re-interpretations of the game mechanics into computer alogrithms].

But really, how many of the users of PCGen truly care about the open source nature of PCGen? Or are they just happy to have a program that they find useful to use no matter if its closed or open. If you have issues with possible events upcoming, you can always [its pretty easy to] get a dump of the PCGen source [and OGL'd data] from the SourceForge CVS system and start your own variant of it.

If you load the text of the PI into any other program its illegal, even if you don't use the program to distribute these files to other users

Even if the language says that, who cares? Unless the license owner is going to institute some form of compliance checking for individual users, what and how you use the data or PI or anything else for your own personal use is really up to you. Once it goes beyond personal use into distribution, even to friends, it may become an issue that might be worth the lisencees attention. A real world example is all the music trading going on. Convert those cds from the redbook audio to mp3s and play them all you want. Convert mp3s into oggs and play those instead. Use them on all your devices. Make backups. All for personal use. However, once you start distributing that data [the music in redbook, mp3, ogg, wav, au or whatever format] to others you've stepped across the line based on lisences given to you.

 

[smetzger]

Even if the language says that, who cares?

I care. If I didn't care I wouldn't be asking. I would just do it and deal with any consequences later.

Unless the license owner is going to institute some form of compliance checking for individual users, what and how you use the data or PI or anything else for your own personal use is really up to you. Once it goes beyond personal use into distribution, even to friends, it may become an issue that might be worth the lisencees attention. A real world example is all the music trading going on. Convert those cds from the redbook audio to mp3s and play them all you want. Convert mp3s into oggs and play those instead. Use them on all your devices. Make backups. All for personal use. However, once you start distributing that data [the music in redbook, mp3, ogg, wav, au or whatever format] to others you've stepped across the line based on lisences given to you.

Actually thats not quite correct the music companies are offering mp3s for download with a restricted license. Some you can't burn onto CDs etc. , even if its for your own use.

Also, the film industry will not let you make backup copies of your DVDs. It doesn't matter if your distributing them or not.

Licenses matter.

Thank You,
Scott

 

[Twin Rose]

Licenses matter.

I agree with you here. End User Agreements come with every piece of software, and you almost always have to say you agree when you install. I haven't actually purchased any data-sets from CMP, but I might do so tonight. I'm curious what the End User Agreement when you purchase the data (pre-order in this case) says. I don't believe adding an End User Agreement AFTER you have paid your monies is binding, at least in terms of data.

Would you purchase a PDF from RPGNow if you then received a EUA that said you could only use that PDF with an "RPGNow Exclusive" PDF viewer of their own make? (Whether or not it was free?) I think if you knew ahead of time, though, you could make an informed decision.. and I would wager that many would go and try this viewer to see what made it so nice. CHanging it, later, migth be problematic though.

This would be especially interesting if the datasets come in an XML format. Using Internet explorer, you can view an XML file, close and open nodes, search and more. Using more advanced programs, you could make your own character sheet that reads the XML ... But an End User Agreement that said the files can only be read in PCGen or ETools would mean you couldn't do these things, which is really much of the value.

Just my 2 cents, and I"m not a lawyer.

 

[Hollywood]

Actually thats not quite correct the music companies are offering mp3s for download with a restricted license. Some you can't burn onto CDs etc. , even if its for your own use.

Actually they aren't. They are offering WMA format mostly. The MP3 format does not contain any Digitial Rights security in it, unlike the latest WMA (Windows Media) format does or for Mac the latest QuickTime format.

Nonetheless, I am definetly opposed to said licenses that restrict the rights on how the user's can use the item in which they purchased for their own personal use. At roughly $99, give or take, the cost to download, you can buy the same # of songs as you can on a CD for roughly the same price. However, unlike a CD which you can still rip with some very throughly ripping software, in many cases you are limited in what you can do with the DRM (digital rights media) since the license, and the physical player (i.e. the computer), restrict your personal use of said media. Frankly, while I don't trade mp3s, I do rip them from all cds I buy and never use the cds again except for display purposes in a cd-rack.

This DRM for music downloads is very similiar in nature to the DivX movement that failed miserably. The media companies, i.e. film and music for starters, haven't really learned any lessons from the mp3 swapping problem. They simply think that allow people to buy restricted single copies of media for roughly the same price they are currently selling for in a bundle will entice people to stop [litigation aside]. It doesn't, it just simply makes people less willing to deal with it. Bottom line is that the media companies need to start coming up with creative ideas on how to allow customers to use the media they bought the rights to use without limiting their personal use of it, AND reducing cost of said media. To start with, and this is by now completely off-topic, would be not paying media "stars" such, and this doesn't apply to all artists or producers either, inane amounts of money.

Also, the film industry will not let you make backup copies of your DVDs. It doesn't matter if your distributing them or not.

Yes, most films have had the warning of "Do not make unauthorized copies" for years, back in the Betamax and VHS era and now into the DVD and beyond era too. Ever make a copy of a VHS tape? I did especially after having one or two VHS machines go bad and eating tapes I liked. Same with DVDs. I'll burn a DVD if need be, no matter what the licensing says just as I rip mp3s, especially if it gets used a lot. I'd much rather abuse a copied DVD/CD/whatever than abuse a $20+ DVD.

Licenses matter.

Of course they do, until they begin to restrict what a person can do or not do in the name of personal use. Doing so makes them no less valid as far as the law goes, unless of course some pervision of the license makes it unenforceable, however, it makes the license a lot less desireable for end-users to want to agree to. Especially when the only "players" of the data the license pertains to enforce the license itself. Frankly, the only way to enforce a license that entails restrictions on personal use is through physical means, such as computers only being able to play DRM X number of times. Otherwise, you'd have to snoop in on every house hold in the nation or world to see if they were following your license to the letter when it comes to personal use. Obviously its a lot easier find out about licensing violations if/when distribution happens.

I'm curious what the End User Agreement when you purchase the data (pre-order in this case) says. I don't believe adding an End User Agreement AFTER you have paid your monies is binding, at least in terms of data.

Well, that may be true.. but if CMP is taking MONEY for a pre-order before the product is shipped, then that may be an issue depending on state/country laws where they are located.

Would you purchase a PDF from RPGNow if you then received a EUA that said you could only use that PDF with an "RPGNow Exclusive" PDF viewer of their own make?

All other legalities aside, no I would not.

This would be especially interesting if the datasets come in an XML format. Using Internet explorer, you can view an XML file, close and open nodes, search and more. Using more advanced programs, you could make your own character sheet that reads the XML ... But an End User Agreement that said the files can only be read in PCGen or ETools would mean you couldn't do these things, which is really much of the value.

Well, I'd imagine that if it was in XML format and they really didn't want just anyone opening it in IE or XMLSpy or other said tool, they'd encrypt it. But then again, encryption can be broken [PDF, Office, etc. encryptions are already broken, so anything CMP or similiar level of company is able to beg, borrow or steal, would not be a huge hurdle for a motivated individual... the computer gaming world, heck even DVD world, has proven that out]. Outside of encryption, or obsufication, if the XML is distributed in the clear, no matter what the license actually says, unless CMP or Wizards is going to come and look and see just how and end-user is using the XML and what reader/viewer/editor the user is using in, then its a moot point. Use it how you see fit. However, if you convert it into a different format and start redistributing it, you may very well have a enforceable legal issue. Not to mention, if someone were to create an importer for a different RPG program and distributed it at large, then that may be an enforceable action since it would be a reader that is neither PCGen or ETools.

This is probably a moot point, because I doubt the license will have that clause in it, mainly due to the open-source nature of PCGen. You would have to specify a license for the data so that it only can be read by a certain distro of PCGen. Otherwise by having the license say that the data is useable by PCGen, without distro affliation, anyone can take the PCGen souce, under the LGPL license, and create their own distro of PCGen that does something different such as translating the data into different formats.

At the end, I'm all for protecting an individual's [be it a true individual or company] Intellectual Property. It is their property and they should be able to profit from it without being undermined by unauthorized distribution [i.e. file swapping of music or video or software, etc.]. However, at the same time, protecting IP should not go so far as to trample the individual user's personal use rights either.

Obviously as far as datasets go for stuff like Arcana Unearthed, the license should protect the right of Monte Cook and his staff for having produced the content and the rights of CMP who took the time to put in into a dataset to make sure they get fair compensation for the use of said data [and of course that means no redistribution without express permission]. Beyond that any attempts for the license to say that it can only be used by X product(s) is bunk, especially when there are no licenses in any of Monte's [for example] PDFs or books that limit me on how I can use the data contain in those formats with regards to my personal use.

 

[rob_nz]

I posted his over on CMP before I found this thread, but I'll repeat it here, as it's pertinent to the conversation..

<<
It occurs to me that closing off the datasets from other vendors may be unesscessarily detrimental to both Wizards and CMP's revenue potntial from the data?

If the WotC (and anybody else's) proprietary data were made available to other products from other vendors in some standard import format, then surely that should immediately increase your potential customer base, rather than adversely affect it?

Why would you want to prevent people from buying and using your product?

I'm not seeing a big downside here...

People with Campaign Suite, RPM, DMF etc who have no intention of ever purchasing E-Tools or using PC-Gen would be encouraged to buy the datasets.

Bigger customer base should equal more bucks (for both CMP and WotC), shouldn't it?

 

[NPC]

. . . People with Campaign Suite, RPM, DMF etc who have no intention of ever purchasing E-Tools or using PC-Gen would be encouraged to buy the datasets. . . .

Or be forced to buy E-Tools/use PCGen if they wish to use the datasets . . .

Conspiracy theories aside, I wonder why other character generator developers are not making their own deals with WoTC to use their data? Is it too expensive? Are they waiting to see what CMP releases and then they will write data import programs so that users can just import the data?