Clearing the air about PCGen Data Files

[Veander]

As to the PCGEN board minutes conversation I am really disappointed how those who sell their programs are talked about within the PCGen professional heirarchy. No wonder no one is getting anything about interoperability done when open source people want everyone else to go open source or else.

Soulcatcher: I get what you're saying completely. I would have to say that if they use your stuff they shoudl say something. It isn't like the d20 industry is so big that an email to the owner of any open content wouldn't be completely appropriate. In the situation where Mongoose reportedly didn't ask for permission, I am really depressed by such a lack of effort - if indeed true. Hey maybe the author(s) of Ultimate Feats is working so hard that they haven't a moment to lose, but I HIGHLY doubt it. In my opinion, giving someone an email either asking or stating you are going to use their OGC is free advertising. Example: Me: "I am going to include your prestige class in my campaign setting book, ok?" d20 author Sam: "Cool, no problem it is open content. Say, what's the book?" Me: "Blah blah blah" Sam later on to his friends in a passing conversation: "Hey, my PrC such and such is being used in Veander's new Book of Divinely-shaped Cow patties" See, free advertising. Oh and the Cow Pattie book will be out in March of 2074 for the 16.5 edition of DnD which will be owned by Microsoft.

As to the legalities of all of this I am clueless. But again, if it is legal and if programmers include lst files without even saying anything, then I say shame on you for your laziness and participation in continuing this childish war with open vs. closed software.

V

 

[Twin Rose]

ok, quick explaination:

so, to sum up, I have no gripe with Campaign Suite's intentions to make it so you can import stat blocks from PCGen. including pcgen data directly in a commercial release I do have a gripe with.

I wouldn't want to do this for a number of reasons. First of all, I have specific deals to include Product Identity in data files created for CS, and I most definately would not for 3rd party files created by someone else - I wouldn't be able to call, say, an Arms & Armor file (already in CS) "Arms & Armor" because that's a trademark of bastion press. I'd have to call it "WeaponsBook File" or something. Secondly, I'm not convinced that the full functionality of the files that CS uses would even be PRESENT in PCGen files - we have areas for text and formatting, and with XML a whole bunch more. It wouldn't be beneficial to include someone elses files when, with just a little time and money, I can make my own for inclusion in comercial releases.

Interoperablity is an entirely different beast. This is a way of telling users, "Okay, you spent 40 hours getting all your own PRCs into CS, and you want to use them in PCGen because that's what 3 out of 5 of the players in your group use... here is how." Whether or not, at the end of the day, people can share files outside of their personal group isn't the goal. It's so people don't have to do the same work over and ovre again.

 

[Tsyr]

As to the PCGEN board minutes conversation I am really disappointed how those who sell their programs are talked about within the PCGen professional heirarchy. No wonder no one is getting anything about interoperability done when open source people want everyone else to go open source or else.

Welcome to the wonderful world of open source: The reason I distance myself from the community that makes the operating system I use.

f34r teh 0p3n s0urc3 m4f14.

 

[smetzger]

That is a beta release. This has been corrected to the best of my knowledge in the upcoming 5.4 production release.

Actually it was the most recent production release.

At least they re-format it. They take the information, and give it a new presentation. That is far better then just taking someone else's files, and publishing those as your own work. Also, I find this an odd statement, weren't you the one who demanded that your feats never be in PCGen, even if we were fully OGL compliant? I seem to recall you saying that long ago.

Well, they didn't do much more than copy and paste and even included some of the editing mistakes that were in the NBoF.

Yes, I did complain about PCGen using my Feats without my permission in a non-OGL compliant program. Much of my fuming at the time was trying to convince PCGen members that they did not have permission to use everything they were using and that they were not OGL compliant. All I wanted was that if you use my Feats you comply with the OGL. I never said you couldn't use my feats if you were OGL compliant; just that you could not unless you were OGL compliant.

 

[Tir Gwaith]

Yes, I did complain about PCGen using my Feats without my permission in a non-OGL compliant program. Much of my fuming at the time was trying to convince PCGen members that they did not have permission to use everything they were using and that they were not OGL compliant. All I wanted was that if you use my Feats you comply with the OGL. I never said you couldn't use my feats if you were OGL compliant; just that you could not unless you were OGL compliant.

Ahhhh.... Smetzger. Last fall was interesting, was it not? ;p

Under the OGL, we have to have publisher permission for the name of the product (since we name our files that way, and that is a method of claiming compatibility.) We have permission from the FanCC under the OGL (Paul King has the copy somewhere, if we don't have a copy with the datasets.)

We also make a policy of not putting stuff out without permission (not required by the OGL, but something we do) from the original authors. Paul King and I are the chief enforcers of the OGL in our data files. Since we have permission again to include the Netbook of Feats, we have included it. However, since I have a request from a Copyright holder to not include his stuff, I made sure we didn't include it. We still do the Section 15 (which mentions those non-existant items in our dataset) to the Exact Text of the original source.

I don't think I should publicly comment on anything else, since even if I voice my personal opinion, my current position as the PCGen Data Silverback would make that an official position in a lot of people's eyes.

 

[Fractalwave]

Interoperability

I don't think I should publicly comment on anything else, since even if I voice my personal opinion, my current position as the PCGen Data Silverback would make that an official position in a lot of people's eyes.

That is probably the most intelligent statement made in this thread thus far and the main reason I have not taken part in it until now.

On Interoperability:
Interoperability and the degree of interoperability sought is a function of users requesting it. As such, it should not be ignored or automatically rejected since everyone, open source or closed commercial product, benefits from meeting the requests of their users. That happens to be my personal belief as well as my business approach.

The degree to which interoperability can be achieved, assuming we all agree to it, is debatable. Even though we all use the same basic information, we handle it differently. That is something Twin Rose Software will likely not even investigate until agreements can be reached. However, from what I've seen, the programs simply are not set up to allow one dataset to move freely between them. To complain about something happening which at this time just isn't possible seems a bit silly to me. To complain about someone's desire for interoperability when discussions have not been completed is also just as silly since the degree of interoperability has not been determined and the discussions are not over.

To illustrate the point of view of users:
We have users who have coded their entire campaigns into Campaign Suite. Many happen to own all the other software available including DM Genie, DMF, PC Gen, etc. In their gaming groups, they provide the campaign rules etc and let the players know they accept character information in any of these other formats. These people have requested the ability to accept and transfer to and from these other programs various information, but mostly character information. Some of this information is already transferable in the form of statblocks configurable by the user. To move further requires more agreements with those in charge of other software products and other websites (there are some online gaming sites interested).

A function of the market is the FACT, not supposition, that users are going to freely transfer information. They will do so unofficially if we do nothing to enhance interoperability simply because they can and want to do so. While doing so may involve a great deal of effort on their part, it will still likely be done by somebody who will eventually share the information.

Our choice, as those who control the software products in question, is to either work together and provide something official which meets their needs without violating copyrights or other agreements or to just let them do it. There are many benefits to working together and that would be the best choice in my opinion.

What will be done officially? That remains to be seen.

 

[soulcatcher]

I wouldn't want to do this for a number of reasons. First of all, I have specific deals to include Product Identity in data files created for CS, and I most definately would not for 3rd party files created by someone else - I wouldn't be able to call, say, an Arms & Armor file (already in CS) "Arms & Armor" because that's a trademark of bastion press. I'd have to call it "WeaponsBook File" or something. Secondly, I'm not convinced that the full functionality of the files that CS uses would even be PRESENT in PCGen files - we have areas for text and formatting, and with XML a whole bunch more. It wouldn't be beneficial to include someone elses files when, with just a little time and money, I can make my own for inclusion in comercial releases.

Interoperablity is an entirely different beast. This is a way of telling users, "Okay, you spent 40 hours getting all your own PRCs into CS, and you want to use them in PCGen because that's what 3 out of 5 of the players in your group use... here is how." Whether or not, at the end of the day, people can share files outside of their personal group isn't the goal. It's so people don't have to do the same work over and ovre again.

*sigh*

My position on this has been unwavering from the begining of this thread. This sort of interoperability is positive, healthy, and desirable.

I (once again) have no beef with TR and CS, and the desire to make it work alongside with pcgen, using the user's data.

As far as the lst files, I know that CS does not intend to use them.

I put forward again, that perhaps the 4 major packages can sit down at some point, and define a source data file type that they all participate in maintaining. One would note that even if a file doesn't have all the information needed, if it's XML, one can easily use XSLT and a second XML file containing the extra information needed for that package. Centralizing at least some of the information is better then nothing. (course this does mean we all need to be able to read XML )

The above paragraph may appear to not jive with my previous statements, but it really does....the important difference is that we would all be drawing from a pool that we all helped fill, and volunteers who assisted in this project would do so from the beginning with an understanding that the data would be used in open source, AND close applications.

Devon Jones

 

[soulcatcher]

A function of the market is the FACT, not supposition, that users are going to freely transfer information. They will do so unofficially if we do nothing to enhance interoperability simply because they can and want to do so. While doing so may involve a great deal of effort on their part, it will still likely be done by somebody who will eventually share the information.

Our choice, as those who control the software products in question, is to either work together and provide something official which meets their needs without violating copyrights or other agreements or to just let them do it. There are many benefits to working together and that would be the best choice in my opinion.

What will be done officially? That remains to be seen.

There are two conversations taking place on this thread. Interoperability, and wholesale useage of source data. I have always understood CS's desires to be one of interoperability. My concerns that I have aired here do not relate to interoperability. Not a problem. Bring it on.

There are many benefits of all 4 of us working together. I would like to see that. When do we start?

Devon

 

[smetzger]

There are many benefits of all 4 of us working together. I would like to see that. When do we start?

I actually broached this subject with CMP when they first anounced the WOTC splatbook deal. But nothing ever came of it.

I am not one of "the 4", and I think preference should be given to the requirements of the major players. But I would like to help out in this effort any way that I can.



I'll put a smiley face on that since maybe we can all work together.

 

[Henry]

Speaking purely as a fan, that's something I would like to see as well (the major players working together on a common data reference format). If anything, we should learn from the wrangling going on between corps like Microsoft, Corel, etc. and figure out commonality of data sources, and at least translate between one another. I can open my documents from Word to Wordperfect - why can't I open my files between PCGen and Campaign Suite?