Publishers Opinion Of PCGen

[Archimedes]

Just some thoughts, not even expressing my own oppinions save for my respect that Clark is welling to stick out his neck and say "this is what I believe".

Well, I believe this whole thing has gone past stating beliefs and into just plain wrong.

Clark's stated his opinion before. It was quite clear and helpful.

When he noticed those errors on the Sourceforge page, he could have sent the PCGen gang an e-mail stating that they've forgotten to update their home page. They would have probably thanked him for it and it would have helped patch some of this up.

Instead he gives them a "Please tell me you didn't do this" rhetorical lashing in public even though the cause of the problem was obvious. Ok, that's ugly, but it's not enough for me to say anything about.

The PCGen folks come back saying they've cleaned up the problem and what do they get?

They get Orcus running them down further by calling them sloppy. This goes past stating his opinion into just plain vindictive. From a position of strength he’s doing wrong to his fellow gamers and I'm going to stick my neck out and let him know he needs to check the mirror.

Sam

 

[soulcatcher]

The OGL is the only way to have access to content that is OGC absent another license. That applies to anyone, software or not. There are no special software rules. In fact, copyright laws treat software like books. Strange, but true.

-Clark

ok, I have been sitting sidelines for a long time, but absent another person mentinging it, this is the core of the problem that everyone is miscommunicating about.

1) All D20 material is copyrighted. About this, I assume not one person disagrees.

2) The OGL is a LICENCE to use the material. it is but one method to use siad material. At any time, a person could talk to the publisher and negotiate another licence for the material that is copyrighted BY THAT PUBLISHER. About this, I also assume that not one person disagrees.

3) Copyright law allows people to do certain things with copyrighted material. Such as quote it, parody it, back it up for personal use, etc. About this, I hope no one disagrees - it is a legal fact, known as Fair use.

4) Copyright does NOT cover ideas. It only covers the implementation of ideas. The concept of a DC check is not copyrightable. It is a concept. to gain legal protection for a concept requires patent law. To give an example, if a person writes a book about how to build a better mousetrap, no one can legally photocopy that book and redistribute it. But, unless the IDEA of the mousetrap is patented, anyone can write a DIFFERENT book, using ONLY the original book as inspiration on how to build the SAME mousetrap. Copyright only protects form, not function. Of this, I once again hope one one disagrees. It is again a legal fact.

5) PCGen as I understand it did two things. They used excepts of D20 materials, very small ones - and cited them. They re-wrote the mechanics of the ideas to fit the PCGen program.

They do not NEED to use the OGL, because they are using copyright law. The OGL is but a method for licensing copyrighte materials to other people. Those people can STILL use the base copyright laws, and as such do not gain either the benefits OR the responsibilities of following the OGL.

So, what all this leads to, is that indeed PCGen has at least an arguement that it was indeed legal. They do not have mass amounts of the prose from D20 books, indeed, the only thing I can see that they do have is the names, and sometimes the short descriptions of certain rule bits (such as for feats or skills)

PCGen's position is legally defensable, but it would require a court of law to determine if their quoting was excessive.

and yes, I Am Not A Lawyer - but I have spent an inordinant amount of time studying Copyright law.

Soulcatcher (Devon Jones)
soulcatcher@evilsoft.org

 

[Zaukrie]

So far, Orcus is really the main person to answer this thread. As far as I'm concerned, he hasn't lost my loyalty as a customer, but made my respect for his willingness to be honest (and believe it or not, helpful) grow. If anything, I wish more people in this world were willing to be as honest as Orcus. So, I'll be buying more of his stuff now.

Final thought, even though you didn't ask for customer's opinions, here's one: I agree with Orcus, I won't use products that use someone else's property without their permission, and violating the OGL or whatever, is just that.

 

[Grazzt]

They get Orcus running them down further by calling them sloppy. This goes past stating his opinion into just plain vindictive. From a position of strength he’s doing wrong to his fellow gamers and I'm going to stick my neck out and let him know he needs to check the mirror.

Sam

I dont see it as vindictive. I see it as being honest. PCGen asked the publisher's opinions in this forum. That is what they are getting.

They posted and said they were/are now compliant. But by the banner/image Clark found on their site that mentioned D&D and Star Wars by name they were not (as you cannot refer to such things according to the license). That is sloppiness.

I understand the "Oops we missed something....", BUT if you want to be 100% compliant, ya gotta be 100% compliant and that means checking everything including the website where you advert your material.

Trust me, when WotC asked me to begin posting using the OGL, I went through every page on the Creature Catalog and made sure it was 100% compliant before posting a copy of the license and before announcing that I was in fact 100% compliant (which I am now according to the legal peeps at WotC).

 

[EOL]

PCGen's position is legally defensable, but it would require a court of law to determine if their quoting was excessive.

Insofar as a judge would not render summary judgement (i.e. there would at least be a trial). PCGen's position is "legally defensible". And absent the OGL/D20 and a "safe harbor"... maybe (not probably) but maybe they would not lose (notice I did not say win).

But given that there is an easy and well-used path for doing just this sort of thing, and that WotC has actually made an effort to give people an avenue for using their IP. I just cannot imagine that judgement would be rendered in their favor. It really is much easier and much safer and better in terms of goodwill to just use the OGL/D20.

 

[kingpaul]

calm down folks!

<soapbox>
Could folks please calm down? I've read slams against the PCGen team, slams against Clark, slams against Purple People Eaters...well, maybe not the last, but I hope my point is recognized. If you read something that riles you up, please don't respond immediately. Wait a while, and see if you're still irritated over it. I find this thread interesting, and don't want the SysMods to close it down due to a brewing flame war.
</soapbox>

 

[soulcatcher]

Insofar as a judge would not render summary judgement (i.e. there would at least be a trial). PCGen's position is "legally defensible". And absent the OGL/D20 and a "safe harbor"... maybe (not probably) but maybe they would not lose (notice I did not say win).

But given that there is an easy and well-used path for doing just this sort of thing, and that WotC has actually made an effort to give people an avenue for using their IP. I just cannot imagine that judgement would be rendered in their favor. It really is much easier and much safer and better in terms of goodwill to just use the OGL/D20.

As far as I can tell, there are ONLY two things that the publishers have a legal leg to stand on in a desire to rid pcgen of their material by legal force.

Those are:
Any descriptions that are quoted verbatim from said d20 sourcebook
Any proper names used - though those have to be properly trademarked (Hense WotC not granting people the right to call Mordainkain's Disjuncture by it's full D&D name, but instead by the name Mord's Disjuncture.

It is generally considered (and this admittedly is where I get fuzzy) legal to quote up to 1/10 of a work. PCGen is doing FAR less then that. I seriously doubt they quote more then 1/100 of the works they enter.

Remember, Copyright ONLY covers expression, NOT the ideas presented by the expression. So I once again posit that PCGen would have a reasonable chance of winning a court battle.

BUT, PCGen decided recently to play on the OGL playing field. Before now, they were only using the rights granted to them by Copyright law, as well as the ideas presented in the books. Once again, remember that Copyright doesn't cover ideas - only the expression of them.

PCGen doing this as far as I can tell is not to 'become legal', it is to (and this is purely conjecture) gain the good graces of the publishing community.

in doing this, PCGen is gaining the ability to do some things they did not have before, for example - they could include the full feat description for any OGC feat they use. They could NOT have done this before, as it would have deffinitly pushed them over the limit on quotation. (Note, I don't know if they intend to USE this new ability)

With this comes new restrictions. They are now bound by the OGL, they may now acually have a tougher time if they decided to include .lst files without permission (if the OGL restricts it). and, by becoming D20 compliant - they cripple their software by disallowing automatic generation.

I'm not sure it's actually a good trade for them - but they desire to do it. perhaps the goodwill they gain will offset the negatives.

- Soulcatcher
(Devon Jones)

 

[Twin Rose]

.

PCGen doing this as far as I can tell is not to 'become legal', it is to (and this is purely conjecture) gain the good graces of the publishing community.

in doing this, PCGen is gaining the ability to do some things they did not have before, for example - they could include the full feat description for any OGC feat they use. They could NOT have done this before, as it would have deffinitly pushed them over the limit on quotation. (Note, I don't know if they intend to USE this new ability)

Well, there are certain other things that the D20STL and OGL grant you, and by using certain terms you are - automatically - under those licenses and need to start following them to the term.

Some examples would be "PCGen: A d20 character generator" - you have just applied yourself to the license. Had it been, "PCGen: A character generator for RPGS" that happened to have the MECHANICS of d20 without using any of the IP, you would be in a different playing field.

Really, I think it's just a matter of trying to get the best of both worlds. The d20stl and OGL have provisions of protection that ensure copyright holders continue to own their work even if it is derived from and derived from ad infinitum. This also holds true for the protection of the PCGen team, the publishers, WOTC - really, everyone.

 

[Archimedes]

PCGen asked the publisher's opinions in this forum. That is what they are getting.

I'm not sure if that's really what we're seeing though. Isn't it possible that the original poster is just an outer circle volunteer and initiated this whole thing independantly of the core PCGen team? I don't know for certain, so I can't say they've really asked for this.

Sam

 

[Grazzt]

I'm not sure if that's really what we're seeing though. Isn't it possible that the original poster is just an outer circle volunteer and initiated this whole thing independantly of the core PCGen team? I don't know for certain, so I can't say they've really asked for this.

Sam

Possibly. The poster that started the thread, KNightcrawler has the following in his sig:

"Knightcrawler
PCGen LST Monkey"

Is LST Monkey the same as groupie? If so, then I guess it was someone in the outer circle.