File type discrimination

[bushfire]

Just to confuse everything further. Game mechanics are not copyrightable. So, it is debatable if wether or not you would be in copyright violation.

Well I know people have stated this before on many boards but I don't believe that this statement has *ever* been tested in a court of law. Until someone actually wins a case, and sets presedent, with this defense, it is just a nice idea. Does anyone know of any case law in regards to this? (something that actually went to trial, not settled out of court)

Besides, even if this is the case it does not excuse the fact that while you may use the game mechanics most of the terms used to describe it are still copyrighted. All of the Wotc books, along with *every* spell name, feat name, skill name, most class names, etc, etc. Including any text describing these. Even the stuff released under the OGL is still copyrighted and cannot be used outside of the D20/OGL license.

So while you *may* be able to use the mechanics it would have to pretty vanilla.

 

[Mynex]

Game mechanics aren't copyrightable.



I never heard anyone from PCGen say they were going the route. I have always heard PCGen folk say something like: "we have special permission from everyone, therefore we don't need to release under OGL or d20". Thats completly different from saying "we don't need permission"

I believe that it is a gray enough legal area that the copyright issues would need to be settled in court. So, unless WOTC threatened you with legal action, nothing has been decided on this issue.

Then you obviously missed/haven't been paying attention to the posts on the yahoo group, Bryan's 1st post on this topic was over a year ago there.

And as we were told in no uncertain terms, buy using ANY OGC content we agreed, even unknowingly to abide by the OGL. D20 is where are issues lay atm, since D20 compliancy requires that software not have any interactive points to it (like die rolling).

Since we DID fall under the OGL, and have since the very 1st data set we released, the issue does NOT revolve around OGL compliancy. And yes, this information IS from Lawyers that understand OGL and Software, and it is FACT. WE, as in the PCGen Team, did not understand this, and that is what caused so much confusion in the 1st place, that's OUR mistake.

(directed to all, not Smetzger specifically)

So unless you ARE a lawyer AND familiar with OGL AND Software laws, stop speculating and spreading false information and slandering the PCGen team and PCGen itself.

 

[smetzger]

Then you obviously missed/haven't been paying attention to the posts on the yahoo group, Bryan's 1st post on this topic was over a year ago there.

No, I don't subscribe to that group. My comment was based on posts that people have made in this forum and the emphasis that PCGen folk have placed on getting permission. It is unclear, to me, from your home page on how you are addressing copyright issues. If your intent was to use the 'game mechanics cannot be copyrighted ' clause, then I stand corrected.

And as we were told in no uncertain terms, buy using ANY OGC content we agreed, even unknowingly to abide by the OGL. D20 is where are issues lay atm, since D20 compliancy requires that software not have any interactive points to it (like die rolling).

I am not a lawyer, but I can read. I don't believe that if you use OGC content you are automatically obliged to use the OGL. For instance Fluid includes OGC material in their program and they are not OGL or d20. I believe if you use OGC material but don't release under OGL or d20 than you fall under the broader copyright laws. Also, if I were writing an article explaining RPGs to the general public and included some things that happened to be OGC the article would not be OGL or d20.

True, there is a clause in the d20 license about Interactive Game. But that is defined as '...resolving the success or failure...' Since d20 character generation does not have success or failure (like the old Traveller), I don't believe PCGen would be defined as an Interactive Game.

I am sorry if you feel that I am slandering PCGen, that is not my intention. In fact I think that you should continue with the "game mechanics are non-copyrightable" strategy. Just that if/when you get permission for d20 content that you get it from the right people(and make sure they know they are giving permission to use the material outside of the OGL/d20 license) and that you make it clear somewhere on your webpage and in the Help About box of PCGen that some material is used without permission. But that seems moot now that you have started down the d20/OGL path.

 

[Cougar]

Fluid doesn't need to use the OGL or D20 because they ARE WotC. Fluid itself is only the developer. WotC is the publisher of the software and they don't need any special license to use their own material. Some people seem to think that Fluid is an entity like the development team of PCGen. They are not. Fluid is a company contractually obligated to produce eTools by WotC. Saying they are violating the OGL is like saying the printers WotC uses for printing the PHB are violating the OGL. In this case Fluid and WotC is one and the same. They can use any material, SRD or non-SRD, without having to comply with any special license.



Smetzger, I think everyone here knows you are continually trying to bash PCGen for using your feats from the Netbook. If I was the developers of PCGen or the Netbook council I would take your feats out and let that be that.

 

[smetzger]

Smetzger, I think everyone here knows you are continually trying to bash PCGen for using your feats from the Netbook. If I was the developers of PCGen or the Netbook council I would take your feats out and let that be that.

I am not trying to bash PCGen. Go back and re-read the third paragraph of my last post. Also, a misconception and a miscommunication has been cleared up as a result of this thread.

 

[Cougar]

I was refering to this in particular.

Just that if/when you get permission for d20 content that you get it from the right people(and make sure they know they are giving permission to use the material outside of the OGL/d20 license) and that you make it clear somewhere on your webpage and in the Help About box of PCGen that some material is used without permission.

What are you refering to? Has anyone else complained about having their OGL content included? Seems like you still harbor resentment and need to bring it up at every turn. And if you DON"T harbor resentment, when it sure as hell sounds that way.

 

[smetzger]

I was refering to this in particular.

I am trying to help PCGen avoid some of the mistakes that they have made in the past. It is quite possible that other publishers thought they were giving permission to a use their OGC material in a d20/OGL product as the netBook Council members had.

 

[kingpaul]

However, I do mind that they gave the impression that they had my consent when they did not.

Actually, once they are fully OGL-compliant (and I think they are), they do not need to ask the publisher for permission to use OGC. Most material in the NBs are OGC, as per the PA.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Well apparently nobody wants to answer the question I originally brought up. Instead we are now spending our time argueing over the legality of PCGen. Oh well. The closest I have heard in a while on answering my question is the following

Now my question to you, do you want WotC to crush the E-Tools files swapping activity? Do you think that would be beneficial for E-Tools as a tool? Do you think discussing E-Tools user transgressions will allow PcGen to suddenly be allowed to distribute WotC IP? If you answered all the above questions with no, what exactly is the point of discussing the above?

no(maybe). no. yes(maybe). What is the point? The point is I hate hypocrisy. There is a double standard going on right now that allows the free trading of WotC IP in one file format and not another. I have yet to hear an answer as to why that is. I wish WotC would be consistant in its crushing of file swapping activity, that means either they stop both, or they allow both. You can't have it both ways. I personally feel it would be better for all involved if they allowed it otherwise you neuter both programs. Yes I hope that by discussing this others will realize the hypocrisy of it and do something about it either way. But aparently the answer seems to be that no-one wants to hear this.

Oh well, if it will make everyone feel better the emperor does have clothes. I will now go stick my head back in the sand until everthing is ok.

 

[Cougar]

Brown Jenkin did you read MY posts? Did you read anyone's posts?

What double hypocrisy? Wizards can do anything they want with their program. They can allow people to distribute files of that nature and not allow other groups. There is no double standard. There would only be a double standard if two seperate non-WotC groups were developing a character generator and WotC told one that it didn't have to worry about complying with any standard and told the other to cease and desist.


WotC came up with the OGL and the D20 system to allow game developers (including software developers) to produce material for the D20 system, of which 3rd Edition was the flagship. WotC has been very patient with PCGen (and others) and has given them plenty of time to become compliant, which they are working towards. WotC owns this new system of gaming, so of course they want everyone to comply with it. Now they have produced an electronic aid for their system. They aren't required to follow ANY of the OGL or D20 standards. They can include any amount of material they want or allow any users to enter in what they want.

I honestly don't understand why you think this is unfair. If you create something, you want to keep control of it. If there was no D20 or OGL license than there would be no debate. You are griping at WotC for essentially being too NICE and allowing other developers to use their ideas.

The main point is, WotC owns the file format and the program that is currently being allowed to traffic. They do not own PCGen. WotC will make money if their product is supported by the fans entering in the data from books because more people will see this and BUY eTools. WotC will not make any money if PCGen continues to make available their product (whether PCGen makes money or not).

They can have it both ways. They don't have to allow PCGen to include their material. WotC wants to make money by selling eTools. The better eTools is supported by the community the more people will want it, just like PCGen. The only difference here is (and the answer to your question) is that WotC wants to make money on eTools. For some reason I can't understand you feel this is wrong, even though the program and the IP both belong to WotC.