Clearing the air about PCGen Data Files

[Luke]

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.

There seems to be some confusion here on what the actual rules are.

Before I get into it, so you don't misinterpret where I'm coming from, I'll re-iterate that I've never personally used PCgen info for RoleplayingMaster imports, and I don't think that the RPM community that has created many datsets has either. In any case, RPM's ability to do in-game stuff means that it needs more mechanics than is typically used for progams that are only character generators.

Rules
- Anybody can do anything they like with any information - for their own private use.

- If somebody shares information (like datsets), then it is legally considered as publishing, and you must conform to either the open gaming license or the d20 license (which, for clarity, we don't really need to distinguish between here).

- Anybody that creates original RPG content declares what portion of their work is *open* and what portion of their work is *closed*.

- *Closed* material is treated as being copyright to the original author, and can only re-published by others with special permission from the copyright owner (as where Wizards allow CMP to sell splatbook data).

- *Open* material can be used by anyone, in any way that they like, as long as they conform to the ogl/d20 license. It is a violation of the license to scramble published open information, in any way that prevents it from being human readable and hence re-usable (by other programs, for example). [Scott may well pipe in here concerning binaries, but Wizards are clear on their position].

Consequences of Rules

PCGen, or any other program, violates the license if they create datasets of open material, and then try to prevent others from using it in any way that conforms to the license.
It makes absolutley no difference whether or not a core RPG engine application is open source or not. It makes absolutely no difference how much effort any number of people put into creating the datasets. The fact is that those people got original material from other authors who have declared the content open and hence usable and republishable by all. It is illegal for a program to attempt to try and "close" the information, and hence retrict its use (where that use conforms to the licenses).

There are actually 2 quite distinct and intertwined entities here. One entitiy is the dataset itself, and the other is a program that can make use of the dataset. What I'm hearing here, is something along the lines of "We created the datasets, and we only want you to be able to use it if you also use the program that we made to go along with it".
Not legal. Not really in the spirit of open source and open gaming either.

If you know your recent PCGen political history, you'll know that the program and the datasets are considered to be 2 quite different entities for legal/licensing purposes.
I don't think that you'll be happy to hear this, but as far as rules and licensing are concerned, the PCGen program itself is almost irrelevant. The only thing important about the PCGen program itself is that it must take care not to compile in open RPG content.

As far as the rules are concerned, its all about the datasets. If a thousand monkeys spend a thousand days typing in a thousand datasets of open content, then that can be freely used by anybody that obeys the licencing rules - including other commercial software. No crying about how much effort it took. You took other people's open content, and you must keep it open for others to use.

On the other hand, the rules for *closed* content are quite different. Closed content is essentially treated as copyright to the author, and you only get to use it (copy it or republish it) with special permission from the owner.
This is essentially what we have with CMP publishing the Wizards splat books.
Wizards own the copyright, and give CMP permission to sell/publish it.
As always, people who legally obtain the closed material can privately do whatever they like with it - including import it to other programs for their personal use.

In the case of CMP datasets for Wizards splat books, I would say that morally there is still no case of "many people have put in lots of hours, so you can't use it in other programs".
You see, CMP have already stated that they are *selling* the closed datasets, and that the money is used to *pay people* for their time and effort in producing them.

Conclusion
The whole issue of "we don't want other programs freely using the information we spent hundreds of hours producing" simply falls apart.

You can't have it both ways. Either give it away for free, or stop saying how unfair it is to make use of the efforts of others.

If a particular dataset is open, then its illegal to stop others from using it, according to the license.
If a particular datset is closed, then its being charged for, and the people doing the work are being compensated. In fact, the more programs that can use the datsets, the more money CMP makes from selling it. Why try and limit its usefulness, by restricting it to 1 or 2 programs?

As I said, according to the rules, the program and the data have to be considered separately.
What we seem to have here is a kind of a monopoly on certain data, and a monopolistic attitude of forcing people into using a particular program as well. This is anti-open source. What you need to remember is that iwhen other programs use the data, is still stays open and usable by others. Remember that the program and the data are 2 separate entities.

Its no secret that whilst many love PCGen and are devoted to it, many others find it slow, or difficult to work with. Its also no secret that other software programs are not only character generators, but also offer very significantly advanced features in the areas of adventure building, in-game play, advanced wordprocessing, campaign building, and other types of generators.

Do those with a monopoly on certain RPG information really want to force the rest of the RPG community to use a particular program with it? Do they really insist that the RPG community consider choosing bewteen their preferred program, and having that data available?

If so, perhaps the PCGen silverbacks could at least suggest to the wider PCGen community that people such as Chris do not get "hate mail". After all, he doesn't deserve it, and the PCGen community is ultimately about an open source effort to make certain *datasets* available to the whole RPG community anyway.

As an RPG community, we're better than "hate mail"

Regards,

 

[smetzger]

[Scott may well pipe in here concerning binaries, but Wizards are clear on their position].

My ears were itching

I'll just make a couple comments on this.
1) The license does not specify human readable.
2) I have two programs and a .dll which I have declared parts or whole as OGC.
3) These programs have been available for almost a year now.
4) I have been in dialog with WOTC about these programs and they have not asked me to change them.

 

[Luke]

My ears were itching

I'll just make a couple comments on this.
1) The license does not specify human readable.
2) I have two programs and a .dll which I have declared parts or whole as OGC.
3) These programs have been available for almost a year now.
4) I have been in dialog with WOTC about these programs and they have not asked me to change them.

I didn't think you'd be able to resist that one.

If I recall, Andrew (Wizards) did initially confirm that they require "human readable". I did see the mini apps you posted, and (with all due respect ), I think that Wizards would stamp all over a program that they considered worth their effort to pursue.
PCGen certainly accepted this (as have all major apps such as RolePlayingMaster, CS and DMF).
I can tell you categorically that Wizards closely examined and monitored the forced evolution of PCGen into a license compliant program that did not compile any D20 RPG data or rules into the core engine program. This is exactly what making PCGen license-compliant was all about.

 

[soulcatcher]

Ok, this is a whopper, I'll hit it piece by piece.

There seems to be some confusion here on what the actual rules are.

Before I get into it, so you don't misinterpret where I'm coming from, I'll re-iterate that I've never personally used PCgen info for RoleplayingMaster imports, and I don't think that the RPM community that has created many datsets has either. In any case, RPM's ability to do in-game stuff means that it needs more mechanics than is typically used for progams that are only character generators.

Correct. GMGen is in the same position.

Rules
- Anybody can do anything they like with any information - for their own private use.

True

- If somebody shares information (like datsets), then it is legally considered as publishing, and you must conform to either the open gaming license or the d20 license (which, for clarity, we don't really need to distinguish between here).

True, although the D20 licens is pretty unimportant to this conversation. A person may also except small bits to be used ina 'fair use' manor via copyright law.

- Anybody that creates original RPG content declares what portion of their work is *open* and what portion of their work is *closed*.

True

- *Closed* material is treated as being copyright to the original author, and can only re-published by others with special permission from the copyright owner (as where Wizards allow CMP to sell splatbook data).

True

- *Open* material can be used by anyone, in any way that they like, as long as they conform to the ogl/d20 license. It is a violation of the license to scramble published open information, in any way that prevents it from being human readable and hence re-usable (by other programs, for example). [Scott may well pipe in here concerning binaries, but Wizards are clear on their position].

true, although the last part is interpretable, and not technically in the license - that is wizards stated desire for interpretation.

So, with you so far.

Consequences of Rules

PCGen, or any other program, violates the license if they create datasets of open material, and then try to prevent others from using it in any way that conforms to the license.
It makes absolutley no difference whether or not a core RPG engine application is open source or not. It makes absolutely no difference how much effort any number of people put into creating the datasets. The fact is that those people got original material from other authors who have declared the content open and hence usable and republishable by all. It is illegal for a program to attempt to try and "close" the information, and hence retrict its use (where that use conforms to the licenses).

This is correct. However, we still ahve a right to an opinion, and we still have the right to not allow people to use the PCGen name in their materials. This comes from the OGL. PCGen is PI, and it is a trademark owned by Bryan McRoberts. Without his permission, no project may use that name, and no project may state that they are compatible with it.

When we deal with publishers, we ASK them if we can use their sources, and we do or don't dependant upon their answer. PCGen has not one shred of material that a publisher does not want to be there. When publishers deal with each other, they have developed a culture of asking each other if they can use OGC. None of this is necessary, but it's polite. We are asking for the same treatment.

We are not attempting to 'close' the information. But we are trying to recieve the same treatment that developers give any other publisher.

There are actually 2 quite distinct and intertwined entities here. One entitiy is the dataset itself, and the other is a program that can make use of the dataset. What I'm hearing here, is something along the lines of "We created the datasets, and we only want you to be able to use it if you also use the program that we made to go along with it".
Not legal. Not really in the spirit of open source and open gaming either.

we are asking our neighbors to play nicly. I imagine the community would be happy to let other open source programs use the data, and possibly (though less likely) freeware. The problem that some people have is that they are giving thier woprk away for free, and some programmers want to take that information and make a profit off of that. It's not illegal, but it is Immoral and Rude.

If you know your recent PCGen political history, you'll know that the program and the datasets are considered to be 2 quite different entities for legal/licensing purposes.
I don't think that you'll be happy to hear this, but as far as rules and licensing are concerned, the PCGen program itself is almost irrelevant. The only thing important about the PCGen program itself is that it must take care not to compile in open RPG content.

that's fine. yes. and?

As far as the rules are concerned, its all about the datasets. If a thousand monkeys spend a thousand days typing in a thousand datasets of open content, then that can be freely used by anybody that obeys the licencing rules - including other commercial software. No crying about how much effort it took. You took other people's open content, and you must keep it open for others to use.

Yes. but we are also playing by the societal rules. Rules that are not imposed by law, but instead by convention. If other programmers want to treat us like garbage, and abuse our good will, they can. And they can do it legally.

On the other hand, the rules for *closed* content are quite different. Closed content is essentially treated as copyright to the author, and you only get to use it (copy it or republish it) with special permission from the owner.
This is essentially what we have with CMP publishing the Wizards splat books.
Wizards own the copyright, and give CMP permission to sell/publish it.
As always, people who legally obtain the closed material can privately do whatever they like with it - including import it to other programs for their personal use.

Yep

In the case of CMP datasets for Wizards splat books, I would say that morally there is still no case of "many people have put in lots of hours, so you can't use it in other programs".
You see, CMP have already stated that they are *selling* the closed datasets, and that the money is used to *pay people* for their time and effort in producing them.

Yes, and? I choose to make code and content available for the masses, and I don't ask for monetary compensation. People who charge for their stuff have eery right to do so - but when they profiteer off of me, and use me to make a profit, that makes me justifyably angry. I make free content for *users*, not to fatten someone elses wallet.

Conclusion
The whole issue of "we don't want other programs freely using the information we spent hundreds of hours producing" simply falls apart.

You can't have it both ways. Either give it away for free, or stop saying how unfair it is to make use of the efforts of others.

If other software producers won't give us the same courtesy they give to publishers, I have every right to be angry.

If a particular dataset is open, then its illegal to stop others from using it, according to the license.
If a particular datset is closed, then its being charged for, and the people doing the work are being compensated. In fact, the more programs that can use the datsets, the more money CMP makes from selling it. Why try and limit its usefulness, by restricting it to 1 or 2 programs?

Yep. I personally want to limit it via social (not legal) means because I believe open software is better for the community then closed software. I don't want through my actions and efforts to encourage people to purchase a closed, proprietary application. This is *my* belief. Feel free to disagree.

As I said, according to the rules, the program and the data have to be considered separately.
What we seem to have here is a kind of a monopoly on certain data, and a monopolistic attitude of forcing people into using a particular program as well. This is anti-open source. What you need to remember is that iwhen other programs use the data, is still stays open and usable by others. Remember that the program and the data are 2 separate entities.

Yes, they are. And I would welcome any other open source applications to use the data. I am sure that any person writing one that wanted to use the data would recieve not only teh data, but our appreciation for using it in new and interesting ways. Competetion is good. A marketplace of ideas is good. And it is not anti open source to promote the usage of what I see as a superior development model over closed applications. We have few legal weapons, but we CAN prevent other developers from using our name - by the rules, we CAN organize people, we CAN give our opinions.

And we by no means have a monopoly on the data. if people want to do the same thing we have, they can always contact the publishers, and get permission to do the same thign for their closed application.

Its no secret that whilst many love PCGen and are devoted to it, many others find it slow, or difficult to work with. Its also no secret that other software programs are not only character generators, but also offer very significantly advanced features in the areas of adventure building, in-game play, advanced wordprocessing, campaign building, and other types of generators.

Yeah, that's where I come in. GMGen is going head to head in this arena, and personally (though I'm biased) I think it's the best combat tracker out there. PCGen dropped eh D20 license, and GMGen will soon (hopefully) be included as a part of PCGen. We will compete in this area, and both you and I and others will do our best to win. I intend to see PCGen become or stay the best of breed Character generator, with GMGen as a best of breed GM's toolkit. PCGen has it's flaws, but it is by users, for users, and that mean a lot.

Do those with a monopoly on certain RPG information really want to force the rest of the RPG community to use a particular program with it? Do they really insist that the RPG community consider choosing bewteen their preferred program, and having that data available?

It's not a question of that. First, remember that this is me, not the pcgen bod talking. What I want is to see many many good, and open tools. I ahve already offered to help at least one developer make thier program Open Source, and guide them through usage of the data. I want to see many many programs using the pcgen data, I think that would be great.

But I don't want to see some person swoop in, with no care for the community, and take all that work to make money for themselves. I may not be able to legally prevent them, but I sure can try to shame them out of it.

If so, perhaps the PCGen silverbacks could at least suggest to the wider PCGen community that people such as Chris do not get "hate mail". After all, he doesn't deserve it, and the PCGen community is ultimately about an open source effort to make certain *datasets* available to the whole RPG community anyway.

I agree, chris does not deserve any hate mail. Interoperability is a totally different beast. Users can use their data the way they want to, and if someone writes a program that can read in the users data, and take it where they want to, that's fine and dandy.

As an RPG community, we're better than "hate mail"

Regards,

I completly agree. Hate mail is useless and damaging to dialog

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

And again....me, not the bod here.

 

[smetzger]

When we deal with publishers, we ASK them if we can use their sources, and we do or don't dependant upon their answer. PCGen has not one shred of material that a publisher does not want to be there. When publishers deal with each other, they have developed a culture of asking each other if they can use OGC. None of this is necessary, but it's polite. We are asking for the same treatment.

We are not attempting to 'close' the information. But we are trying to recieve the same treatment that developers give any other publisher.

I don't think thats true. I have contributed a fair amount of material and put a fair amount of effort into contributing OGC for freely available products. I have had my OGC routinely re-used in for profit products without anyone contacting me and asking for permission.

[Edit this out]Although you may ask the publishers, I don't believe you ask the copyright holders. I have never received an email from PCGen asking to use any of my feats that I contributed to the NetBook of Feats.[/Edit this out]
I just checked and I couldn't find any NBoF Feats in the latest release build. So it looks like I was incorrect about this point.

But then I don't mind. My name is in Section 15 and thats all that matters to me.

 

[Luke]

But I don't want to see some person swoop in, with no care for the community, and take all that work to make money for themselves. I may not be able to legally prevent them, but I sure can try to shame them out of it.

I appreciate that post, Soulcatcher. I feel a warmer tone there.
I also agree that proceeding along polite grounds is the way to go.

I don't, however, agree with the "go open source or we shame you" approach, though.
PCGen is a significant piece of work, but it certainly has its limitations, being based on a Java SDK, in terms of interface, amount of RAM required and other things.
I'm not sure how many different programs you've looked at with regard to combat tracking, but I can tell you that (using an example I know), there's a whole stack of quality, integrated features in RolePlayingMaster that just wouldn't work (speed, RAM etc) on the average PC - if it ran on a Java SDK. Just check out the new wordprocessing features in it to get an idea of what I mean.

Please, the point is not about "my app is better than yours". The point is about people having the flexibility to choose an app that gives them the features, power and quality that they feel they need.

Open source material should stand on its own quality. I personally don't believe in an open source effort monpolizing control of information to enforce the use a companion open source application.

As far as I understand it, no other commercial programs are built around "swooping on PCGen data". They're simply talking about an option for people to use additional data that they (typically) will purchase from CMP.

I think that the real point has been missed (and side-stepped in your reply). The real issue is actually about other software being able to legally make Wizards splatbook data available to users of their software.
The effort and hours people have put in is then not an issue. The people who did the work on that data get *paid* for it, and those who end up using the data *pay* them for it. So where's the problem?

Personally, I wouldn't be interested in importing PCGen data to RolePlayingMaster. It would probably take me more effort to try and convert it, than to enter it in my own format from scratch. I have nice editors for entering game data. I would still come up short, since I need more than PCGen has in it to support my full in-game stuff.

That leaves me (and other programs) with an issue of how to make Wizards splat data easily available legally. Since Wizards have only talked to CMP, who are only doing ETools and PCGen, thats where other software needs to look.
I think you'll probably find that Chris' interest in PCGen is pretty much as a legal source of Wizards splat data in XML format.

On the point of swoopers making money: I recall all the major RPG shareware developers (myself included) stating a while ago that the effort we pour into our programs is about a passion for RPG, and that if it was about making money, we'd be better off doing something else with our time. Chris (TwinRose) was silent on that issue, and that's his business.

If you look at D20 publishers, there are those that produce open content, and those that produce closed content.
I don't see any effort from the open D20 publishers to shame or strenuously encourage commercial D20 publishers into going open source. I don't think things should be any different with software.

Ultimately, the RPG public should be left to decide what they like, and what they are prepared to pay for. If PCGen/GMGen meets their needs, is better than commercial stuff, and is free - well, everyone will be using it!

Finally, I can tell you that the principals of the greatest open source project - Linux, are **not** poor people - and can thank Linux for that. I can also tell you that Sun's great (open) Java initiative (upon which PCGen/GmGen is completely dependant) was also very much about making money. A few years ago, serious Java initiatives in business usually required the purchase of very expensive multi-processor sun boxes.Yes, Java helps sell Sun boxes.
With another great open source initiative, PCGen, the principals worked hard for a right from Wizards to incorporate the splat book data. Guess what? They're now running a commercial business selling those datasets, that came to them as an opportunity due to their positions as principals of an open source project!!!

On a much smaller scale, the components I use to develop RPM are *not* cheap. Things have to be paid for.
Not being tied to whatever the Java SDK has to offer costs me, but it also gives me much greater flexibility with the quality I have to offer the RPG community (assuming I'm happy to be Windows-only).

Good Luck,

 

[soulcatcher]

I appreciate that post, Soulcatcher. I feel a warmer tone there.
I also agree that proceeding along polite grounds is the way to go.

I don't, however, agree with the "go open source or we shame you" approach, though.

it's not a weapon I would choose to use lighly, but it's one of the only offensive tools an open source project has when people abuse it (and I'm not saying anyone has abused it yet).

PCGen is a significant piece of work, but it certainly has its limitations, being based on a Java SDK, in terms of interface, amount of RAM required and other things.
I'm not sure how many different programs you've looked at with regard to combat tracking, but I can tell you that (using an example I know), there's a whole stack of quality, integrated features in RolePlayingMaster that just wouldn't work (speed, RAM etc) on the average PC - if it ran on a Java SDK. Just check out the new wordprocessing features in it to get an idea of what I mean.

Please, the point is not about "my app is better than yours". The point is about people having the flexibility to choose an app that gives them the features, power and quality that they feel they need.

I think that to some degree you are right, but with careful programming, and cleaning up of code, it's been proven in many benchmarks that java *can* be almost as fast as C. Especially if I chose to move to SWT (a native windowing toolkit released by teh eclipse project). That being said, it's not alwyas about features, it's also ease of use, and good choice of features. And no worries, we are of course both biased - in the end, the 'market' will decide

Open source material should stand on its own quality. I personally don't believe in an open source effort monpolizing control of information to enforce the use a companion open source application.

As far as I understand it, no other commercial programs are built around "swooping on PCGen data". They're simply talking about an option for people to use additional data that they (typically) will purchase from CMP.

See, then they should say so. PCGen data is for OPEN use. CMP data as far as I can tell you can use as you damn well please. If the CMP data sets are the issue for the developers of these various packages, that's fine - I don't care one whit. It's useing the PCGen name, potentially without permission, as well as usage of teh data sets taht have been contributed that get my panties in a bunch (so to speak).

I think that the real point has been missed (and side-stepped in your reply). The real issue is actually about other software being able to legally make Wizards splatbook data available to users of their software.
The effort and hours people have put in is then not an issue. The people who did the work on that data get *paid* for it, and those who end up using the data *pay* them for it. So where's the problem?

There isn't one, at least not with me. I have no connection to CMP. I work with PCGen and GMGen. I suspect the CMP people would welcome other pieces of software using their data, cause it's more sales for them.

Personally, I wouldn't be interested in importing PCGen data to RolePlayingMaster. It would probably take me more effort to try and convert it, than to enter it in my own format from scratch. I have nice editors for entering game data. I would still come up short, since I need more than PCGen has in it to support my full in-game stuff.

Great. This is not directed at you

That leaves me (and other programs) with an issue of how to make Wizards splat data easily available legally. Since Wizards have only talked to CMP, who are only doing ETools and PCGen, thats where other software needs to look.
I think you'll probably find that Chris' interest in PCGen is pretty much as a legal source of Wizards splat data in XML format.

Talk to CMP. All the data in PCGen is OGL. granted, we do have some specific PI permissions. Any other group can do the same, they don't have to use our data, no monopoly. The CMP stuff is for sale by a company with contracts to enable it to do so. and as I said, I'm sure they would be happy to let others code compatability with those data sets. I seriously doubt anyone in the PCGen community will care.

On the point of swoopers making money: I recall all the major RPG shareware developers (myself included) stating a while ago that the effort we pour into our programs is about a passion for RPG, and that if it was about making money, we'd be better off doing something else with our time. Chris (TwinRose) was silent on that issue, and that's his business.

Excellent. That's the spirit I like to hear. Doesn't mean that there might not be a project that intends to cheat, and make money off other people's toil.

If you look at D20 publishers, there are those that produce open content, and those that produce closed content.
I don't see any effort from the open D20 publishers to shame or strenuously encourage commercial D20 publishers into going open source. I don't think things should be any different with software.

Ultimately, the RPG public should be left to decide what they like, and what they are prepared to pay for. If PCGen/GMGen meets their needs, is better than commercial stuff, and is free - well, everyone will be using it!

That's my hope

Finally, I can tell you that the principals of the greatest open source project - Linux, are **not** poor people - and can thank Linux for that. I can also tell you that Sun's great (open) Java initiative (upon which PCGen/GmGen is completely dependant) was also very much about making money. A few years ago, serious Java initiatives in business usually required the purchase of very expensive multi-processor sun boxes.Yes, Java helps sell Sun boxes.

With another great open source initiative, PCGen, the principals worked hard for a right from Wizards to incorporate the splat book data. Guess what? They're now running a commercial business selling those datasets, that came to them as an opportunity due to their positions as principals of an open source project!!!

It's not making money I object to. It's taking from the community for personal gain, and not giving back. The community gives, so should it recieve.

On a much smaller scale, the components I use to develop RPM are *not* cheap. Things have to be paid for.
Not being tied to whatever the Java SDK has to offer costs me, but it also gives me much greater flexibility with the quality I have to offer the RPG community (assuming I'm happy to be Windows-only).

Yeah, and it's a tough route. Java has it's problems, but lack of functionality is not one of them

Good Luck,

Good Luck to you too.

On another note, I would liek to sit down with you, Chris, Todd, and whoever runs DM Genie, and discuss interoperability. there is no reason a person who likes my combat manager, but your campaign management tools shouldn't be able to use both, and have them talk to each other.

Think about it.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

same as before....not the bod, all me.

 

[soulcatcher]

I don't think thats true. I have contributed a fair amount of material and put a fair amount of effort into contributing OGC for freely available products. I have had my OGC routinely re-used in for profit products without anyone contacting me and asking for permission.

Well, people do deal directly with the netbook people, and don't always go down to each copyright holder. Not to mention, the netbook stuff explicitly has given permission for people to use it in other OGL products. I could be wrong, but I even seem to recall a statement that one needn't bother to contact them to use it in an OGL document.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I'm not, you kind of implicitly gave your permission for peopel to use it by submitting it to the netbook team.

[Edit this out]Although you may ask the publishers, I don't believe you ask the copyright holders. I have never received an email from PCGen asking to use any of my feats that I contributed to the NetBook of Feats.[/Edit this out]
I just checked and I couldn't find any NBoF Feats in the latest release build. So it looks like I was incorrect about this point.

But then I don't mind. My name is in Section 15 and thats all that matters to me.

I don't know if you are the guy, but SOMEONE from the netbook of feats requested that their stuff NEVER EVER be included in PCGen. We respected that. You can't ask more from us. As far as I know (and no, this is not my area, so I don't really know), the source is not available to the public right now, because the data team is ensuring that it's clean, and has permission from everone.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

 

[Nine Hands]

Some months ago, I posted on a thread regarding XML datasets for the popular character generator "PCGen". To clear the air about something, what I posted was that an end-user could make an XSL Stylesheet to transform one set of XML to another and use the files interchangibly.

Recently, this was shown to me, and my email box has been getting complaints:

"6.) A way of protecting PCGEN LMC created datasets (our section 15
statement should cover this).
<Paul> YES, but NOT to protect against CMP. Technically right now
ANYONE could swipe the datasets for their pay product (can we say Twin
Rose)"

<snipping many good points>

Thank you for your time, and I'll happily answer any questions posted to this thread.

I think that using the data is any product is really a good idea. I have written a handful of sources in my time working on PCGen and I could care less what people do with them. Basically its OGL, that is the way it works. If there is a transform sheet ever made, I will be more than willing to use it in both PCGen and Campaign Suite. I personally would love to see a movement for dataset creation, apart from the individual programs themselves. The data monkies would create datasets to specification, release them under OGL and other programs could import them when and if they wanted to. Of course, licensed data sets would have to be handled by some sort of contract (like CMP is doing, they seem to have things under control at this time).

Also remember that the quote was from one BoD member, not the entire BoD. Actually I would be surprised if the BoD voted to lock down the data, it goes against EVERYTHING that this project stood for in the beginning AND would make problems for integrating stuff from GMGen (they would have to be let in on this secret encryption method). In the end, encryption is pointless since the PCGen code is freely available. I just don't see it happening anytime. Now for CMP, they still have a similar problem. To make the data usable by PCGen they have to at some point unencrypt the stuff. Its a total PITA and IMHO not worth the time to implement it.

And again, thanks for the beer

 

[Nine Hands]

I don't think thats true. I have contributed a fair amount of material and put a fair amount of effort into contributing OGC for freely available products. I have had my OGC routinely re-used in for profit products without anyone contacting me and asking for permission.

[Edit this out]Although you may ask the publishers, I don't believe you ask the copyright holders. I have never received an email from PCGen asking to use any of my feats that I contributed to the NetBook of Feats.[/Edit this out]
I just checked and I couldn't find any NBoF Feats in the latest release build. So it looks like I was incorrect about this point.

But then I don't mind. My name is in Section 15 and thats all that matters to me.

Isn't that the point of OGC? Its open so they don't have to contact you specifically, they have to follow the license which requires certain copyright in section 15. PCGen has tried to follow the wishes of publishers and pull material (even OGC material that we could legally and freely use) if the publisher does not want it. A user has to contact a copyright holder for PI. If the stuff was PI, then whoever wants to use it MUST contact you before using it.

Lately, the team has been bending over backwards trying to satisfy publishers, almost to the point of annoying users because it takes forever to get the data sets into the program.

Sorry to hear that you had problems with the NBoF and I remember the talks on the list about it pretty clearly.