Publishers Opinion Of PCGen

[Knightcrawler]

LSD Monkey...LST Monkey? You mean there's a difference?

I'm still looking at pretty colors all the time, on the screen.

In the about I'm listed as Magus Knightcrawler, only Knightcrawler was already taken as a Yahoo ID.

No, I'm not the head monkey. I wouldn't want the job. To much stress, I like to slack off every once and a while. The head LST Monkey is Tir Gwaith.

Thanks for including me in the machine Leopold.

 

[soulcatcher]

As to the legal issues, I am not a lawyer so I can't really say. I thank those of you that are defending PCGen but remember a couple of things. Yes, PCGen might be in the right, we might have the law on our side and we might win a case if it actually went to court. But to what end? None of us have the money to hire lawyers to defend us through a protracted court case. WotC has lawyers and money plenty to throw at PCGen if they really wanted to. Also all those "mights" are really dangerous, we could lose. And the only thing that a court case would do is to cause bad blood between the various parties involved.
-Knightcrawler

Of course. That would do you no good. The discussion was purely theoretical at that point, discussing whether PCGen was legally defensable in their decision to include sources from WotC that were not in the SRD. I just happen to think that the law is indeed on your side. So discussions of court were purely illustrative of that point - not a prediction of you guys doing so - which would likely be suicide for the project because of legal fees - but not the law.

I think you would find that doing it such that you didn't violate any IP laws would be far, far, far more torturous and difficult than complying with the OGL/D20 licenses.
-EOL

Well, that may be so, but you do get DIFFERENT rights by following the copyright or OGL paths. It really depends upon what rights you desire. My only point is that legally, PCGen's old situation was sound. There was an aweful lot of FUD flying on this message board about whether they were legal (And they were even called Thieves and Pirates on some other threads). I think if one looks at my initial post with an open mind, they will see that such a position is not in fact sturdy.

No one has to use the OGL to use their higher level Fair Use rights. Despite prostations to the opposite, the OGL is NOT the only way to access, and use OGC.

And as far as quoting up to 1/10 You still have to abide by fair use restrictions, like parody, scholarly works, or news stories. If I took 1/10 of the Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan and published it as a whole new (and perhaps readable ) book I would get sued so fast the ink would still be drying.
-EOL

In my defense, I did state that was an area that my knowledge is not quite so solid. Suffice it to say, that I believe that the small amount of copyrighted material that was used in PCGen was very likely below the quotation limit for each book.

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.
-Twin Rose

True, I appoligize if my earlier statement was misleading in implying that the items I suggested were the only benefits. the grouping was meant to be a small list of examples

-Soulcatcher (Devon Jones)
soulcatcher@evilsoft.org

 

[Mynex]

LSD Monkey...LST Monkey? You mean there's a difference?

I'm still looking at pretty colors all the time, on the screen.

In the about I'm listed as Magus Knightcrawler, only Knightcrawler was already taken as a Yahoo ID.

No, I'm not the head monkey. I wouldn't want the job. To much stress, I like to slack off every once and a while. The head LST Monkey is Tir Gwaith.

Thanks for including me in the machine Leopold.

Get it right.

Yes, Tir is 1 of 2 List Silverbacks... I'm the other. There's parts Tir knows better than I, and parts I know better than he... it's a good synergy.

As for the rest of it, Would everyone please relax now? Let's let it lie for the moment, and give us a chance to get everything fixed and done okay?

I mean seriously, we're talking software here and considering that GenCon ended 2 weeks ago, I'd say we've done a remarkable job in such a short period of time...

And to re-iterate, we ARE _ALL_ volunteers on this project, we all have RL issues to deal with, and we all (well except a few of us) work on what we want to work on... not everyone that codes knows how to do web pages, not all who know web pages know how to code or work the data files...

Clark, thank you for pointing that out, I will make some time to comb through everything looking for other stuff over the next week to see if anything else was missed.

 

[HellHound]

Okay... here are my issues with PCGen claiming to be fully compliant:

1. When you run it for the first time it says:

...By default, PCGen uses settings for standard D&D 3e campaigns...

(yet another reference to the D&D trademark)

2. It then pops up the OGL. The section 15 is TOTALLY wrong. A LOT of the products listed have their section 15 entries QUITE different from the entries listed here.

Section 6 clearly states:

You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Game Content you Distribute.

Yet, for example, the section 15 entry for Backdrops reads as follows in PCGen:

Atlas Games - Penumbra - Modules - Backdrops (c)2002

Whereas, it reads as follows in the actual module:

Open game content from Backdrops Copyright 2002, Trident Inc. d/b/a Atlas Games; author Will Hindmarch

That's a serious violation of the OGL - and it is repeated for EACH AND EVERY PRODUCT in their section 15!

for example, they cite:

Green Ronin Publishing - Arcana - Societies of Magic (c)2001

when the actual product's section 15 reads:

Arcana: Societies of Magic, Copyright 2001, Kevin Brennan and James Maliszewski.

in addition, that product includes another item in it's section 15 which isn't included in the PCGen section 15:

Legions of Hell, Copyright 2001, Green Ronin Publishing; Author Chris Pramas.

To top it off, they cite

Wizards of the Coast - Core Rulebook II - Dungeon Masters Guide (c)2000
Wizards of the Coast - Core Rulebook III - Monster Manual (c)2000
Wizards of the Coast - Core Rulebook I - Player's Handbook (c)2000
Wizards of the Coast - Psionics Handbook (c)2001

instead of citing the SRD, which is interesting because the content of those four books are NOT released as OGC outside the SRD.

I could go on, but the list of non-compliances and complete misuse of the OGL here is HUGE!

3. When choosing domains, there is a list of deities on the left of the page... this list is very interesting from an IP point of view. It includes such deities as:

Blipdoolpoolp, Boccob, Erythnul, Garl Glittergold, Gruumsh, Heironeous, Hextor, Kord, Lolth... need I go on? Try to tell me this is not using their Intellectual Property and is only using Open Game Content.

 

[Grazzt]

3. When choosing domains, there is a list of deities on the left of the page... this list is very interesting from an IP point of view. It includes such deities as:

Blipdoolpoolp, Boccob, Erythnul, Garl Glittergold, Gruumsh, Heironeous, Hextor, Kord, Lolth... need I go on? Try to tell me this is not using their Intellectual Property and is only using Open Game Content.

Deities are definitely not open. There is no mention of them in the SRD.

(Hell, I don't expect WotC will open them even when Deities goes into the SRD either. I would imagine all the chapters save the D&D one from that book will make it into the SRD.)

 

[Orcus]

I appear to be persona non grata here, but I would observe this: I think in the lifespan of this thread you guys have gone a long way to increasing your knowledge of what is required to become compliant and have taken steps that maybe you wouldnt have known to take.

As for being rude about mocking the home page, sorry about that. I wasnt mocking so much as trying to point out one of my causes for concern and using that as an example. And expressing my surprise that they didnt get that simple part right. And supporting my concern that while they worry about the code, I worry about compliance. I guess I expected to see dotted "i"s and crossed "t"s and didnt see that. Thus my reaction.

As for being a gamer, of course I remember that. But I am also running a business. I have an obligation to the people who like our stuff to keep it going. Being careful with our IP is part of that. I have a day job and a wife and a daughter and a mortgage too. So even Necro is nothing more than a really elaborate hobby

Regarding the comment that "PcGen (and other software projects) is that it just entered it's grace period, and it might be wise to be a bit more helpfull instead of being condesenting." I dont think that is true. They have been in the grace period for nearly two years. If you know me, you know I am more than helpful to new companies. I am happy to lend a hand. If I have a tone it is because this has gone on for a time and I have, on the d20 lists, many times mentioned that PCGen is not compliant. So dont judge these comments as being my "first opinion" on the matter.

Regarding using OGC, the license applies to using OGC. Maybe this is semantics, but if you are using general copyright law you are not actually using OGC you are referring to the actual source material. I have never said you cant do that. I have only said I think it is problematic and will trigger a law suit by WotC which in my estimation it is more likely than not they would win. In fact, because they have gone to the lenghts to do the OGL/d20 SRD that actually helps them preserve or define their protectable IP. But my position is that PCGen is noncompliant. I am glad they are moving towards compliance. Will that bring some restrictions? Yes. Will it keep them out of hot water? Yes. So that is a smart move.

I've said enough about my position. Sorry if I have upset anyone. I thought this was an Official (tm) PCGen sanctioned request for opinions. I guess that wasnt quite the case. Had I known that perhaps I wouldnt have posted.

I wish you guys luck getting compliant and might even refer you to some resources here on ENWorld. Morrus has a What is the d20 System page that has some fine checklists to help you see issues relating to compliance.

If I can answer any questions regarding compliance, feel free to email me.

Clark

 

[soulcatcher]

Ok...as far as the dieties - give them at least a little leeway. They just decided to become OGL & D20 compliant at GenCon. Heck, even the OGL gives them a month after publishing something under the OGL, and they have had all of 2 weeks - moch of which has been spent re-programming the basic foundations of PCGen to support the D20 requirements.

Personally, I think I've been very objective - mayhap you all will disagree... but it looks some of the posters here are trying to come up with reasons to be angry at the PCGen guys.

They have posted a new version, and stated that they THINK it's fully OGL compliant. If you find something, I'm sure they would like to know. There is no reason for a lynching.

I seriously doubt that their intention is to "Completely misuse the OGL". Besides, the people that PCGen has to pass muster to is WotC - and if WotC looks at it with their lawyers, I'm sure they will notice all the minor issues. PCGen will only make becoming D20 compliant take a longer time by keeping information in the program that is unacceptable, or by screwing up the section 15 of the OGL - so there really is no conspiracy, they are not out to screw the D20 community.

Heck, if you look at their change logs, they are treating OGL non compliance issues as bugs. So if you really want to see it solved, instead of just using small mistakes as an opportunity to attack them - go and enter the OGL issue as a bug in their bug tracking system - it is public after all.

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=384719&group_id=25576&func=browse

And no - I am not affiliated with PCGen in any way. I just think some of the characterization of these people is becoming increasingly harsh - but that cooler heads can prevail.

Soulcatcher (Devon Jones)
soulcatcher@evilsoft.org

 

[Orcus]

In fact, here is the stuff from Morrus' d20 page. It is very helpful.

Taken from the OGF-d20 list - general consensus was that this was sound advice, although the author of the following does not want his name attached. As always, make sure you use a lawyer:

Remember, however, this is not legal advice. This is not sanctioned by WotC. Nothing I say can guarantee you will be in compliance. Review your licensing issues with an attorney.

1. Is your product even covered by the OGL or d20 license?

2. Are you instead using the WotC internet use policy?

3. Are you using material only from the SRD?

4. If not, where did you get it from?

5. Have you included the full text of the OGL in your product?

6. Have you updated your copyright notice (section 15) properly?

7. If you are using other companies OGC, are you referencing that properly?

8. Are you avoiding restricted or copyrighted terms, such as "Dungeon Master" or "Dungeons and Dragons" or "D&D" or "Monster Manual" or "Dungeon Masters Guide"?

9. If you are making a d20 product, are you complying with the restrictions on the logo size?

10. Are you improperly indicating compatibility with any trademark?

11. Have you clearly designated your OGC?

12. Have you designated your Product Identity (if you intend to do so)?

13. Do you understand that profit has nothing to do with any of this? The license does not only apply to stuff that is for sale.
Those are some "issues" that I see. Others may add to this list of issues. Notice that I raise issues rather than answer questions. This list is also not exhaustive. Just because you address these issues does not guarantee you will be in compliance.

Use this list this way: if you know what I mean by all the issues on the list you are probably on your way to understanding the terms of the licneses. If any of the issues I raise make you say "what is he talking about" then you need to spend some more time with the licenses.

Remember, the licenses include the OGL, the d20 System License and the d20 System Guide which is incorporated into the license.

This list was followed with the following:

Here are some [more] issues [to consider]:


1. are you doing a notice as required in section 2 of the OGL? Such as "this product contains Open Game Content which can only be used under and in terms of the Open Game License contained in the Legal Appendix.

2. have you updated the copyright notice properly as required by section 15 and 6 of the OGL? Including:

a. using the "exact text" of the copyright notice for the OGL and the SRD.

b. using the "exact text" of any OGC you may be using from other companies

c. listing YOUR copyright information in the event you are distributing new OGC.

3. have you clearly marked any OGC you are using and/or distributing?

4. do you have any material you wish to designate as Product Identity, and if so have you designated that
properly?

5. are you limiting yourself only to content from one of three sources:

a. content from the SRD

b. OGC content from other producers that has been designated as OGC (which requires you to mention them in your copyright notice)

c. [product identity content and] OGC you are creating yourself

6. have you avoided the trademarks of other companies and avoided indicating compatibility with any such products?

7. are you avoiding placing any limitations on any of the OGC, since the license provides in section 2 you cannot limit it.

8. if you are using the d20 logo and license you should also consider the following:

a. are you complying with the size limitations of the logo as detailed in the License and Guide?

b. are you refraining from altering any restricted terms defined in the d20 Guide?

c. are you refraining from detailing how to create a character and apply experience as detailed in the d20 guide?

d. are you making sure to include at least 5% OGC?
You should answer "yes" to all these questions. If not, go back to the licenses and see why you said "no".

Those are some issues to get you started. This checklist, like checklists I have posted before, are not guarantee that you will be in compliance. They simply summarize some of the issues that I and others on this list have encountered and discussed.

Doug Meerschaert listed these as common violations to watch out for. Reprinted here with his permission:

There are a LOT of common violations. Points to recall that everyone forgets:

The only WotC trademarks you're allowed to use are the d20 mark, and the trademarks "Player's Handbook" and "Wizards of the Coast" in specific phrases, that should only be used to point out that the PHB is needed. You cannot use the trademark "Dungeon Master" or the trademark "Monster Manual." However, referring to these books by abbreviations or non-trademarked names (PH/DMG/MM or Core Rulebook I / II / III) isn't specifically prohibited.

You must update the OGL's section 15 (copyright notice) with the exact text of every source. That incudes, at the very least, the OGL, the SRD, and your own work.

The only WotC products you can derive from are, well, none at all. The SRD is open for use, but that's it. FRCS, the class books, and even DRAGON articles are off-limits.

Anything derivitive has to be Open Gaming Content. You and your lawyer have to figure out how much leeway you want to take with what is and what isn't derivitve. Were it up to me, all stat blocks, new rules, and new items that fit in the existing rules (items, spells, skills, feats, races, & classes at least) have to be OGC.. (or in other words, everything that you wouldn't have to re-write if you were making thegame GURPS.)

 

[HellHound]

Ok...as far as the dieties - give them at least a little leeway. They just decided to become OGL & D20 compliant at GenCon.

They have posted a new version, and stated that they THINK it's fully OGL compliant. If you find something, I'm sure they would like to know. There is no reason for a lynching.

Once again, this thread was started asking for PUBLISHER OPINIONS. I am a publisher, and these are my opinions. If you don't like them, fine, but implying that my pointing out my problems with the software is an attempt to "try to come up with reasons to be angry at the PCGen guys", as opposed to HONEST critiques of the product, maybe you should look the other way.

I'm just giving my OPINION of the problems with the software as it stands, and why I don't like it. This is no "lynching" as you imply, just an honest response.

If you don't think these comments are civil, should I say that they are blatantly disregarding the license to this day without posting anything to backup my claim? I think showing the faults in the way they are handling the license is a better way to handle this than just sitting back and letting them wait for WotC to tell them the same thing.

It doesn't take a lawyer to read the OGL, most of us (the Ambient Inc team) understood it just fine after a read through or two. Section 6 of the License is incredibly clear regarding the responsabilities of persons working with Open Game Content within the OGL, yet even that simple mechanic was not followed.

(and it's not like the OGL is a big document.. there are ONLY 15 sections to it, and they failed to comply with at LEAST two of them.)

And as soon as someone DARES to point out these flaws, once again there is a knee-jerk reaction claiming that we should "give them at least a little leeway" and that we are being belligerent and are somehow inciting a lynching...

Next time, let's just name the thread "What do we all love about PCGen (please don't say anything negative or point out any mistakes)" and then we won't have posts that offend the defenders of PCGen.

 

[soulcatcher]

Regarding the comment that "PcGen (and other software projects) is that it just entered it's grace period, and it might be wise to be a bit more helpfull instead of being condesenting." I dont think that is true. They have been in the grace period for nearly two years. If you know me, you know I am more than helpful to new companies. I am happy to lend a hand. If I have a tone it is because this has gone on for a time and I have, on the d20 lists, many times mentioned that PCGen is not compliant. So dont judge these comments as being my "first opinion" on the matter.
-Orcus

(Note, I really jacked this up, by stating that PCGen was, when I Intended to say it was not....sorry - soulcatcher)

No one has disagreed that PCGen was NOT (and may still be NOT) OGL Compliant. BUT, PCGen just chose to BECOME OGL compliant. You yourself said that WotC can approach you to licence content for use in their works not covered bo the OGL. The fact is, PCGen attempted to make it's character generator WITHOUT using the OGL method of accessing content. Instead, PCGen chose to use excepts (which is arguably legal, but may not be) and to write things in their own words - which always has been, and always will be legal, unless the RPG industry starts patenting their concepts - which is highly unlikely. Anone can choose to re-write the Player's Handbook, or the Creature Catalog, using their own works, but reproducing the ideas in those books completely. This is more akin to what the PCGen team did, and it is not illegal - it is done all the time in other publishing circles. I shall repeat, NO ONE owns the ideas - they are public, as are all ideas that are not patented. PCGen is fully within their legal rights to produce a program that implements the ideas in any of these books, as long as they do not over quote them. Thus, you are correc that they have not been in compliance with a licence for 2 years, they they never chose to exercise - thus, 2 weeks ago is when their grace period starts. You can't be bound to an agreement that you never entered into. By declaring that PCGen IS NOW OGL compliant, NOW they have entered into that agreement. Just because WotC offers the OGL doesn't mean that every person is automatically bound to it. Everyone still has certain rights with the Players Handbook weather they choose to use the OGL or not.

Regarding using OGC, the license applies to using OGC. Maybe this is semantics, but if you are using general copyright law you are not actually using OGC you are referring to the actual source material. I have never said you cant do that.

Yes, actually you did. you stated that the OGL is the only way to ue OGC content, on numerous occasions. That is false, as you have all the rights that any user of any copyrighted document gain.

I have only said I think it is problematic and will trigger a law suit by WotC which in my estimation it is more likely than not they would win. In fact, because they have gone to the lenghts to do the OGL/d20 SRD that actually helps them preserve or define their protectable IP. But my position is that PCGen is noncompliant. I am glad they are moving towards compliance. Will that bring some restrictions? Yes. Will it keep them out of hot water? Yes. So that is a smart move.
-Orcus

As far as WotC, they never threatened any legal action, at least not publically. Anyone has the right to use the concepts and ideas in any published work, and the OGL doesn't take that away. OGC is a method to allow people to use what is COPYRIGHTED, and only the actual expression of the idea can BE copyrighted. The OGL is a wonderful idea, but people don't have to use it to make use of their most fundamental rights - and not one person here has shown a shred of proof that the PCGen team did anything that wasn't already allowed by those fundamental rights.

Business in the later half of last century on into this one seems to have gained a sense of entitlement to more then they actually are granted by the laws of the land. Copyright doesn't give anyone cart blanche control over their works, just basic control over distribution of your expression. And Copyright does not allow the producor any control over how thier ideas can be used. Copyright was crafted so that producers can not have an iron fisted control over those ideas, because to do so would allow those people to censor new ideas, and new expressions. Just as more then one person here would like to censor PCGen, and erradicate their expression of ideas that are owned solely by the public (Mostly the people who would like to see PCGen die do not appear to be in this thread, but in others)

Soulcatcher (Devon Jones)
soulcatcher@evilsoft.org