Code Monkey Lose WoTC License (Merged)

[daan]

PCGen has always had a history of trying to help other 3rd parties, so I think the team will end up voting to assist 3rd parties with point 1 (for the sake of relations between publishers and the software industry) and will simply only ask that we get mundo kudos for point 2 . I'll post up the results of our findings on this board and the digital D&D board on WoTC

Just wanted to say this: you guys are a cool bunch, I hope WoTC decides something in your favor.

Daan

 

[Anurien]

Hi Anurien, I curious as to why you perceive this as good news for yours and other products? On the one hand sure, a competitor who had an advantage is now in the same boat as you, so I can see it from that angle.

But I seriously doubt that this means you or anyone else will now have carte blanche access to Wizards copyright material.

As I understood it from previous threads on the subject (yours and others) there was nothing in the prior situation to stop you making a business case to WoTC for your own licencing agreement?

Do you have some new information on that front you can share?

I think the level playing field is what I was getting at. No further info beyond that at this time.

 

[3catcircus]

They, not you. I'm with PCGen, not CMP.

Ok - well I stand corrected in terms of the singular "you" vice the plural "you" as in "you all." The fact of the matter is that CMP was spawned from the PCGen folks, so despite the legalities of the people being in different "corporate" (for lack of a better term) entities, PCGen still got its marching orders re: non-OGL datasets to remove them.

 

[3catcircus]

I'm not sure as IANAL (we've got our OGL/IP gurus looking further into this), I only know that:

1.) Publishers may get upset that PCGen datasets are getting converted to another program, we had to get a host of specific permissions to allow PCGen to create certain datasets. I'm pretty sure that any other other 3rd party who has similar software (or yes even one who supplies a converter to that software) would need the same permissions to create 'datasets'.

So I guess technically PCGen doesn't need to get involved here, it's a matter between the 3rd party and the individual Publishers. But we feel that we should at least inform 3rd parties of the permission gathering that we had to go through with Publishers. Who knows we might even be able to assist in helping other 3rd parties get those permssions (we've got the contacts after all ;p)!

2.) We _think_ (and we're investigating this) that the datasets the PCGen team have created are PCGen's IP. Now _if_ it is our IP then the team needs to decide who we allow to convert the data, I don't really see us blocking anyone but you are talking about a team of ~50 over 5-6 years producing hordes of data, so you can understand that there might be some grumblings about a rival software product benefiting off the back of their hard labour.

Now as the Chair Monkey I have asked the OGL/PI team to look into points 1 and 2 and I've also polled our entire team about point 2, the debate is raging at the moment .

PCGen has always had a history of trying to help other 3rd parties, so I think the team will end up voting to assist 3rd parties with point 1 (for the sake of relations between publishers and the software industry) and will simply only ask that we get mundo kudos for point 2 .

I'll post up the results of our findings on this board and the digital D&D board on WoTC

I'm curious - what do you consider to be PCGen's "IP?" The data contained in the datasets certainly isn't. The fact that they (.lst files) are text files certainly also isn't. The only thing that could be considered IP is the structure of how data is organized in a .lst file. It isn't ia violation of copyright law to read data and parse said data into a new format.

The only thing I see here being a sore spot is that a team of people got a bunch of cramped fingers, squinty eyesight, and hunched backs from fat-fingering data - but aren't they all violunteers?

 

[kingpaul]

The fact of the matter is that CMP was spawned from the PCGen folks, so despite the legalities of the people being in different "corporate" (for lack of a better term) entities, PCGen still got its marching orders re: non-OGL datasets to remove them.

PCGen was told by WotC, before CMP was created, to stop distributing the closed-content datasets. CMP was formed to initially patch eTools. Then they got the dataset license as well. CMP doesn't tell PCGen what to do.

 

[Mercule]

I'm curious about conversions....

Isn't this a lot like OpenOffice being able to import/export a Word document? Sure, the word document might have IP in it, but opening it in another application doesn't violate any laws AFAIK. Likewise, you could save the Word doc in OpenOffice format.

I can understand WotC saying that no one can sell non-dataset files and even strong-arming CMP into not putting a converter into RPGF. What I don't understand is how anyone could say that RPGX, or any other tool, couldn't include a PCGen format importer.

 

[kigmatzomat]

This is a big hazy mess and I am no expert, but I am a moderately informed and interested layman. Copyright, as a core concept, is based on the idea that people who work on stuff should be able to make something off it. Everyone who has spent several hours pouring over an RPG book to convert it into LST/XML/chargenX format knows they worked. Human nature is to feel there is some entitlement after having worked, be it for control of the product, recognition of the effort, and/or payment in some fashion.

That's the psychology, which the laws have tried, in some fashion, to protect with highly debatable levels of effectiveness.

The reality as it stands is that you have:

a) publishers who OGL their material with varying levels of comprehension of what that means

b) coders who exert significant time and effort into converting that material

c) A legal system with centuries of cruft and legal whorls (if not loopholes) as to the details of copyright.

d) Since this discussion includes software, you also have the fun and games of patent law to contend with. (Intellectual Property includes both copyrightable and patentable works)


Let's start with the conversion program. A program to convert from an open standard (e.g. the details of the file format is both public knowledge and in the public domain) is completely legal. A program to convert a closed format (e.g. the format is not in the public domain) is probably legal as long as it does not infringe on a patent or copyright (such as lifting someone else's code). An example would be a file format that involves a patented encryption routine; without a license for the encryption routine you could not decrypt the file. Even if the encryption is weak and easily defeated, it may be illegal to break it thanks to the DMCA.

The discussion of "what is PCGen's IP" goes back to b) people spending effort. If people did nothing but copy/paste the SRD, there would be little in the way of new IP, though it may qualify as a new "work of art" due to the changes in organization. (remember, I'm not an expert) But the truth is that many SRD details are paraphrased to fit the needs of the software (e.g. text boxes, output sheets, etc). Those paraphrased statements are definitely new IP.

Since the PCGen data files are (to the best of my knowledge) distributed under the OGL and the PCGen software is published under the GPL, there should be little legal basis for an arguement about converting to an OGL or GPLd product....

...except for item a). Some publishers want a review of the PCGen data files b/c they want to do a QA/QC check to ensure the LST coder got the mechanics write and that any paraphrasing has the right meaning, which is a hard thing to argue with, assuming they aren't nit-picking perfectionists that delay the release of the LST files with constant revisions.

The problem is with the publishers who don't realize that the OGL means they have no say in how people create derivative works based on their material. Some never expected anyone to actually take advantage of the OGL, others did not intellectually comprehend it and quite a few, I suspect, did not understand it emotionally. Most publishers are authors, and artists as a whole can become quite irate when their art is "abused."

The PCGen team has been bending over backwards to maintain cordial relations with the publishers for multiple reasons. The simplest is that it is bad PR when a publisher bad mouths the project for "misusing" their games. Working with publishers also results in some of that QA/QC, improving the product earlier in the release cycle. Lastly, it means publishers don't abandon the OGL.

It is quite likely that if the PCGen folks had told the publishers "We're doin' what we want with this book 'cuz you OGLed it, neener-neener!" then said publishers would have never released anything under the OGL that they weren't explicitly required to. So, six years down the line, the PCGen team could point at several products that probably never would have been OGL had they not been so accomodating. They aren't likely to say what those products are as it might shame the publisher but I'm very confident that those products exist.

One would hope that roughly six years into the OGL all the publishers would be hip to what it means but that is not always the case. Anyone who plans on getting into the OGL software game should really ask questions of the PCGen team and learn the wisdom they acquired over years dealing with publishers as small as it gets (one guy in a basement) to WHasbrotC.

 

[kingpaul]

PCGen software is published under the GPL

Actually, its under the LGPL.

 

[kigmatzomat]

You'd think by now I'd learn to say "GPL-family" since there are like twelve variant Gnu Public Licenses.

 

[kingpaul]

since there are like twelve variant Gnu Public Licenses.

That I didn't know. I was only aware of LGPL and GPL.