Clearing the air about PCGen Data Files

[smetzger]

It's the OGL. Since the data sets are coverd by the OGL, the OGL gives pcgen, and Wizards of the Coast certain rights. One of those rights is the ability to deny another company the ability to claim combatablilty with your product (as I understand it).

I was just thinking of this. This is a valid point for the OGL datasets and they are protected by such a claim.

However, I don't think the non-OGL datasets are protected by such a claim. One could just claim the ability to load in WOTC splatbook datasets available from CMP.

Many companies make money off of Open Source projects, RedHat to name one. If you don't want someone else to make money off of your source code then you shouldn't Open Source it. You should instead just release the executable.

I don't think that PCGen has a legal leg to stand on in regards to this issue. However, its obviously a point of contention with the PCGen crew, thus I am willing to work with you guys on this.

Thank You,
Scott Metzger

 

[smetzger]

Hey - we are the ones, along with some other projects like OpenRPG that put our time, energy, and sometimes money into creating programs for the roleplaying community, and we are doing it without asking for compensation.

The same could be said of the NetBook of Feats which I contributed to and which you included illegally in early PCGen releases.

 

[soulcatcher]

That certainly wouldn't apply to using any CMP datasets in another program.

I don't represent CMP, I don't know anything about CMP other then what is officially stated, and frankly, I'm not particularly thrilled at how divisive the CMP issue has been with the community. That being said, I am not going to comment on any of your CMP issues, because they have very little to do with pcgen - if you want to claim combatability with CMP datasets, talk to CMP.

I haven't personally imported anything from PCGEN for use in RolePlayingMaster, and the RolePlayingMaster community that has created many datasets hasn't either (far as I'm aware). Nevertheless, I wouldn't agree with any claims that its unfair to use datasets that are made freely available (like PCGEN) in other programs.
Surely the point of creating a freely available dataset under open source is to benefit the wider RPG community? Why would somebody get upset because you didn't use the same program as them?

My opinion is use it in any program you like, so long as that program is also open source. If someone is making money, then they have no right to profiteer off of the donated labor of hundreds of people.

If members of the RPG community find that they get better use out of a different program, or that ETools/PCGEN are just unsuitable - then wouldn't we all want them to get the best possible outcome for enjoying their roleplaying?

well, I would prefer they use PCGen, and not E-Tools. E-Tools is not open either. And yes, I do want the users to have the best outcome come game time. But the users are not the only people in the mix. The people who develop other closed applications that want to use pcgen data are not doing this for the users. they want to do this for money. It's called profit motive, and it's very powerful. And this profit motive pushes some people to try and cheat by using the fruits of someone else's labor.

I guess I could have a problem if a different program used other programs datasets, and then made a surcharge on it for themselves.

that's our issue.

My personal philosophy with RolePlayingMaster is that people only pay when (if) they register the basic program. From that point on everything is provided for free. Registration money allows me to pay for on-going development and new features in the program (like advanced wordprocessing, tree interfaces and powerful grid components). From what I can see, people are quite happy to pay once for a small up-front shareware registration, and then continually reap the benefits of a constantly improving program.

That's great. Being open source allows us to get many hundreds of people to add features, and do other work for pcgen/gmgen such as Data, Documentation & Advocacy.

If other people/publishers want to create RolePlayingmaster datasets, adventures, or other resource material; and then charge for it - good luck to them!

If a user makes a dataset on their own, they can do ANYTHING they want with it. And this is also why CMP can function - they make their own datasets for pcgen and charge for them - they are not using someone else's free labor.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

Once again, these are my opinions, and not those of teh PCGen BoD

 

[soulcatcher]

I was just thinking of this. This is a valid point for the OGL datasets and they are protected by such a claim.

However, I don't think the non-OGL datasets are protected by such a claim. One could just claim the ability to load in WOTC splatbook datasets available from CMP.

Yeah, you would have to take that up with CMP. I have no opinion about this.

Many companies make money off of Open Source projects, RedHat to name one. If you don't want someone else to make money off of your source code then you shouldn't Open Source it. You should instead just release the executable.

RedHat doesn't leach, RedHat contributes thousands upon thousands of man hours to hundreds of open source projects. All they code they publish is under the GPL (or similar licenses). RedHat is an outstanding member of the Open Source community. Selling linux while contributing heavily to it's development is diferent then taking the source, putting it in a closed application, making your own improvements, and selling the result. That is wrong.

I don't think that PCGen has a legal leg to stand on in regards to this issue. However, its obviously a point of contention with the PCGen crew, thus I am willing to work with you guys on this.

Thanks

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

yep, you guessed it, these comments are mine, and mine alone.

P.S. about the net book of feats thing? Yes, PCGen did not play by the rules early on. Whoops. it was brought to our attention, and we fixed it, and did significant damage to our userbase to do so. We are now very compliant not just to the letter of the law, but to the spirit. PCGen will pull sources that they have eveyr right to use under the OGL if a publisher requests it, and in the case of the net book of feats, we have done so - at least one person did not want their material included in PCGen, and we complied with that wish - EVEN though we had every legal right to keep it under the OGL.

 

[Veander]

Who is using PCGen lst files in their program as sold?

V

 

[soulcatcher]

Who is using PCGen lst files in their program as sold?

V

No one is currently. But there have been multiple packages that have announced that they intend to.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

 

[Veander]

No one is currently. But there have been multiple packages that have announced that they intend to.

Who is saying this about future products? Could you post a link where it says this?

V

 

[soulcatcher]

Who is saying this about future products? Could you post a link where it says this?

V

Actually, I would prefer not to target this specifically at anyone, instead at the trend. But, if you read this thread from beginning to end, you will see at least one person who is in charge of a closed application that stated they intend to do so.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

yadda doesn't yadda represent yadda BoD yadda

 

[Twin Rose]

Hey, thanks! Got it. Interesting format, it will make for fun tests.

If anyone else has XML files for the SRD 3.5, I'm interested in seeing them, if possible.

Andargor

Naturally, this format is still evolving as it gets run through the ringer by the end users making their own sheets/etc... But it's coming along. It's naturally designed with CSX in mind, but I'm finding (see the character files, for example) that the users are finding information 'needed' for a good character sheet, making requests, etc, which I'm happy to help with.

 

[Twin Rose]

Actually, I would prefer not to target this specifically at anyone, instead at the trend. But, if you read this thread from beginning to end, you will see at least one person who is in charge of a closed application that stated they intend to do so.

Well, one simply -can't- include anything that is open content in their binary without risking turning the whole binary into Open Conent - poisonous fruits, and all that. And unless ALL you distribute is open source, no compiled binaries, you can't include open content in your source either.