In my humble opinion
First off, just to add a little levity perhaps, I would like to correct Leopold on his list of cheezy PCGen titles. There are also a few non-simian titles as well. these include:
Ooze (lst Ooze, Code Ooze, etc....someone just learning_the ropes of PCGen)
Paramecium (One step up from ooze
)
Badger (Usually referring to one who "badgers" the lst and Code monkies to include something in PCGen)
And, of course, the List/Artist Gopher, of which there is only one....me
However, regardless of my ties to PCGen, I am _trying_ to be impartial with the rest of my post.
First off, PCGen is NOT claiming to be fully compliant yet, only that they are working towards becoming so.
Second...Yes, the front page refers to D&D 3e campaigns. However, if you refer to the excerpt of the d20 liscense, which Orcus thoughtfully included in one of his posts, you will notice that it says:
"Except as described in the sections titled "Trademark Use in Marketing" and "Mandatory Trademark Use", you may not use the Dungeons & Dragons or Wizards of the Coast trademarks in advertising or in any marketing in support of the Covered Product, or in any other use in conjunction with a Covered Product."
I realize this is only an excerpt of the liscense, however, it specifically mentions that using the D&D trademark for _marketing_ a specific d20 product is not allowed. Referring to it _within_ the product is allowed, as long as you accept the d20 liscense. (I might be mistaken about this. I'm not TOTALLY clear on that one.)
PCGen is accepting the d20 liscense. (or at least trying, in good faith, to do so)
Admittedly there are still compliancy issues with PCGen. However, the team is working extremely hard, with the help of Anthony Valtera, to come into compliance with the liscense. They have not claimed that they are _definitely_ d20 compliant, only that they are working to become so. The most recent build of PCGen is the first step to becoming d20/OGL compliant, not the final one. Anyone on PCGen will admit that it is by no means without error. They have sent it to WOTC to look over, and hopefully any fuzzy or unallowable material will be addressed soon.
You are absolutely right! And thank you for pointing it out. The PCGen monkies must have misinterpreted that, or perhaps missed it in all the rush to get stuff done. They did not deliberately intend to represent Section 15 in an incorrect manner. That's why this is only the FIRST STEP towards compliancy. We knew things would be overlooked because WE ARE NOT PERFECT. NOTHING is perfect right out of the gate, no matter how thourough the preparation might be. They were trying to comply with Section 15 and they did it incorrectly. Now that the issue has been pointed out, it can be remedied.
Please, please, PLEASE....DO go on! Any other non-compliancy issues must be addressed! What ever you notice, please tell us, because we WANT to fix it! Anything you notice that we are unclear on can be discussed with WOTC to get the best understanding of how to fix it.
On this I really have no thoughts. Perhaps Bryan/Mynex can contact Anthony about this to be absolutely sure. And, if indeed it is not allowed, they can fix it.
There have been a lot of terms applied to the PCGen team on this board that I have noticed. Namely "willfully", "flagrantly", and "blatantly" non-compliant. That PCGen "flaunts it's noncompliancy" and other phrases of the same bent.
This is true in the sense that PCGen never claimed to comply with the d20/OGL, but with copyright laws. (I am not debating the legality of their claims one way or the other, mind you) OGL vs. Copyright is a technicality that is very hazy right now. Both sides of the arguement, IMHO, are correct. Implying that one side or the other is morally bankrupt isn't the proper way to handle it though, because the lines are not clear cut.
A VERY simple example. My friend and I are looking at the ocean. I see the ocean as more blue than green. He sees the ocean as more green than blue. We are both right in a sense. I could tell him over and over and over again that the ocean is blue, but that will not make him change his mind or make me more right. I see everybody "telling" PCGen over and over again that they were not OGL compliant in the same light. All these people have the same authority as I do when I claim the ocean is blue. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. That's why PCGen wanted a dialogue with WOTC in the first plact. PCGen believed it was legal under copyright, others believed it was not because it wasn't OGL. That doesn't mean PCGen is wrong, it's just not "right" as some believe it should be.
However, the wording of these phrases is undeniably negative. Obviously I understand a publisher's hesitancy to endorse/approve of a project which does not apply to the liscense, however, it seems to me that some are seeing/speaking of the issue in the worst possible light. Wouldn't it be better to give the PCGen people the benefit of the doubt and "wait and see" what happens? Wouldn't neutrality be better, instead of jumping to the immediate conclusion that they are trying to cheat/defraud you? I feel sorry for people who have such a low view of their fellow man....Not everyone out there is trying to cut corners or squeeze through loopholes in the law.
Anyhow, I'm sure tons of people have posted since I began this rambling bit of prose. This is just my opinion, and not meant as a flame in any way. I'm not trying to pick on anyone, in particular or in general, so I'm sorry if anyone takes it that way.
First off, just to add a little levity perhaps, I would like to correct Leopold on his list of cheezy PCGen titles. There are also a few non-simian titles as well. these include:
Ooze (lst Ooze, Code Ooze, etc....someone just learning_the ropes of PCGen)
Paramecium (One step up from ooze
)Badger (Usually referring to one who "badgers" the lst and Code monkies to include something in PCGen)
And, of course, the List/Artist Gopher, of which there is only one....me
However, regardless of my ties to PCGen, I am _trying_ to be impartial with the rest of my post.
HellHound said:
First off, PCGen is NOT claiming to be fully compliant yet, only that they are working towards becoming so.
Second...Yes, the front page refers to D&D 3e campaigns. However, if you refer to the excerpt of the d20 liscense, which Orcus thoughtfully included in one of his posts, you will notice that it says:
"Except as described in the sections titled "Trademark Use in Marketing" and "Mandatory Trademark Use", you may not use the Dungeons & Dragons or Wizards of the Coast trademarks in advertising or in any marketing in support of the Covered Product, or in any other use in conjunction with a Covered Product."
I realize this is only an excerpt of the liscense, however, it specifically mentions that using the D&D trademark for _marketing_ a specific d20 product is not allowed. Referring to it _within_ the product is allowed, as long as you accept the d20 liscense. (I might be mistaken about this. I'm not TOTALLY clear on that one.)
PCGen is accepting the d20 liscense. (or at least trying, in good faith, to do so)
Admittedly there are still compliancy issues with PCGen. However, the team is working extremely hard, with the help of Anthony Valtera, to come into compliance with the liscense. They have not claimed that they are _definitely_ d20 compliant, only that they are working to become so. The most recent build of PCGen is the first step to becoming d20/OGL compliant, not the final one. Anyone on PCGen will admit that it is by no means without error. They have sent it to WOTC to look over, and hopefully any fuzzy or unallowable material will be addressed soon.
You are absolutely right! And thank you for pointing it out. The PCGen monkies must have misinterpreted that, or perhaps missed it in all the rush to get stuff done. They did not deliberately intend to represent Section 15 in an incorrect manner. That's why this is only the FIRST STEP towards compliancy. We knew things would be overlooked because WE ARE NOT PERFECT. NOTHING is perfect right out of the gate, no matter how thourough the preparation might be. They were trying to comply with Section 15 and they did it incorrectly. Now that the issue has been pointed out, it can be remedied.
Please, please, PLEASE....DO go on! Any other non-compliancy issues must be addressed! What ever you notice, please tell us, because we WANT to fix it! Anything you notice that we are unclear on can be discussed with WOTC to get the best understanding of how to fix it.
On this I really have no thoughts. Perhaps Bryan/Mynex can contact Anthony about this to be absolutely sure. And, if indeed it is not allowed, they can fix it.
There have been a lot of terms applied to the PCGen team on this board that I have noticed. Namely "willfully", "flagrantly", and "blatantly" non-compliant. That PCGen "flaunts it's noncompliancy" and other phrases of the same bent.
This is true in the sense that PCGen never claimed to comply with the d20/OGL, but with copyright laws. (I am not debating the legality of their claims one way or the other, mind you) OGL vs. Copyright is a technicality that is very hazy right now. Both sides of the arguement, IMHO, are correct. Implying that one side or the other is morally bankrupt isn't the proper way to handle it though, because the lines are not clear cut.
A VERY simple example. My friend and I are looking at the ocean. I see the ocean as more blue than green. He sees the ocean as more green than blue. We are both right in a sense. I could tell him over and over and over again that the ocean is blue, but that will not make him change his mind or make me more right. I see everybody "telling" PCGen over and over again that they were not OGL compliant in the same light. All these people have the same authority as I do when I claim the ocean is blue. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. That's why PCGen wanted a dialogue with WOTC in the first plact. PCGen believed it was legal under copyright, others believed it was not because it wasn't OGL. That doesn't mean PCGen is wrong, it's just not "right" as some believe it should be.
However, the wording of these phrases is undeniably negative. Obviously I understand a publisher's hesitancy to endorse/approve of a project which does not apply to the liscense, however, it seems to me that some are seeing/speaking of the issue in the worst possible light. Wouldn't it be better to give the PCGen people the benefit of the doubt and "wait and see" what happens? Wouldn't neutrality be better, instead of jumping to the immediate conclusion that they are trying to cheat/defraud you? I feel sorry for people who have such a low view of their fellow man....Not everyone out there is trying to cut corners or squeeze through loopholes in the law.
Anyhow, I'm sure tons of people have posted since I began this rambling bit of prose. This is just my opinion, and not meant as a flame in any way. I'm not trying to pick on anyone, in particular or in general, so I'm sorry if anyone takes it that way.
I'm still looking forward to the Tome of Horrors.
