Publishers Opinion Of PCGen

[Orcus]

I dont see WotC using OGC per say, since if they want to use OGC (well, OGC they dont own) they would have to follow the d20 STL and OGL, which I dont imagine they want to do. So they would simply contact me and license whatever they wanted from me, which I would most likely allow. That is an end around the OGL. PCGen, on the other hand, has no real choice but to follow the OGL since, unlike WotC, they need to use the OGL to access teh SRD content.

Becasue remeber that OGC isnt public domain. It is OGC. It can only be freely used in and under the OGL. So the only way to use OGC is to either use the OGL or to contact the originator of the content and license it. I see WotC following the second path, which they have done in other situations. For example, the MM2 includes a monster or two based on monsters in the original SSS Creature Colletion. WotC licensed them from us, they are not using them under the OGL because if they did the book would have to be an OGL product. So I see them doing the same thing with etools.

Clark

 

[Nightfall]

I don't suppose you could confess now as to WHICH monsters they chose could Clark? I mean people have seen the pics...and I REALLY can't wait much longer to have my chuckle.

Btw, I got Necropolis, and as I thought, it rocks!

 

[Cergorach]

@Orcus
I was actually thinking more about files entered by fans for fans. Fluid seems to be allowing suchs files to be posted on their (now down) message boards. I don't really see WotC liscencing any such material or inclusion into E-Tools (why would they promote other publishers material?).

What if i entered all the monsters from (for example) CC into E-Tools, am i allowed to do that? What if my friend, who bought CC at the same time as i did, wanted those files for his own use? Well, you kno what i'm going at, how do you feel about such files being distributed for E-Tools (i suspect the same way, but i could be wrong)? Would you consider hosting such files yourself? Or are electronic enhancements for use with E-Tools or PcGen more evil than even Orcus is?

Just kind of curious...

 

[Ysgarran]

Leopold-
Of course.

But I'll tell you I wont entertain the idea right away.
<snip>
I will want to see a period of good responsible compliance.
I guess its true what they say that we all turn into our parents...
Clark

I'm not a primary contributer to the PCGen stuff, I have been more on the sidelines and kept a finger in watching what is going on. I did some contributing but I've been more of a gadfly than anything else. From that vantage point I am confident in saying that a year from now you will be able to look back and say that your concerns will have been answered.

The PCGen folks do want to work with the publishing community. They have been firm in explaining the need to be a good citizen in the publishing community to those who may have wanted to take a more anarchistic approach.

Take a look at the next version PCGen when it comes out. See if your concerns are answered. Then take another a look six or 12 months from now.

later,
Ysgarran.

p.s.
Clark, you mention that you are "not comfortable with the licenses and their interaction with software.", am I correct in thinking that extends also to E-Tools? This gets to the question that Cergorach posed? E-Tools will most like have expansions available through a wide variety of sources that will use Necromancy Games material.

 

[Morrus]

The question I'd like to know the answer to is this: why wasn't PCGEN compliant?

That's not "in what manner was it not compliant?", but "why have the makers waited until now to do so?"

The excuse I keep hearing is "we didn't have a dialogue open with WotC, but now we do". Eh? I don't get it. I'd love to see D20 publishers distributing materials under that rationale. WotC isn't there to teach you about the license and the legalities of it - you're extremely lucky that AV is taking the time to do so now.

It's not like PCGEN was non-compliant on some minor, easily overlooked technical detail. It was very non-compliant in big, obvious ways. Everyone knew it was non-compliant, and said it ad-nauseum. More importantly, there's no way that PCGEN staff couldn't have known it was non-compliant, yet they continued anyway.

So the question is - did you guys do so because you felt you were getting away with it? Or did you honestly believe that you were OK, legally? Or were you under the impression that, lacking a dialogue with WotC, you had the right to do what you liked and that they had some kind of "responsibility" to talk to you and tell you how to do it?

Not that this really matters. You're becoming compliant now, which is cool. And WotC were certainly aware of the software and did nothing until e-Tools was released, so it certainly wasn't harming them in any way. I'm just curious about the reasoning, that's all.

 

[Orcus]

I was actually thinking more about files entered by fans for fans. Fluid seems to be allowing suchs files to be posted on their (now down) message boards. I don't really see WotC liscencing any such material or inclusion into E-Tools (why would they promote other publishers material?).

What if i entered all the monsters from (for example) CC into E-Tools, am i allowed to do that? What if my friend, who bought CC at the same time as i did, wanted those files for his own use? Well, you kno what i'm going at, how do you feel about such files being distributed for E-Tools (i suspect the same way, but i could be wrong)? Would you consider hosting such files yourself? Or are electronic enhancements for use with E-Tools or PcGen more evil than even Orcus is?

I am actually trying to look into this right now and evaluate.

It seems (I dont know for sure) that WotC is allowing fan entries of stuff that is not OGC.

But remember--WotC can do that. It is their content. They can allow that.

PCGen cant. PCGen has to follow the OGL, which doesnt allow them to access non-OGC content.

BUT neither Fluid nor WotC can authorize etool versions of other people's material--even if it is OGC, since etools is not an OGL product. So if etools contains copyrighted material (OGC or not) from companies other than WotC, they need that company's permission. I am actually going to have a meeting with Steve Wieck of WW/SSS about that very topic next week.

Can you enter all the mosnters from CC? For your own personal game use? Yes. For distribution? No.

Would we make those files available? Most likely. I would like to. But I am still looking into that.

I think a Necro etools pack and a SSS etools pack would be really cool. And since I could do it by general license that is much easier than keeping tabs on PCGen and whether or not they are misusing my OGC/PI. Plus, I dont have to worry about my problem with d20 STL/OGL being not software friendly since I wouldnt have to worry about the OGL/d20 STL with a general license for etools.

Clark

 

[Dextra]

not impressed

Honestly, I won't touch it. Not for awhile. I don't like how they handled the whole OGL thang. They should've made the effort to be compliant long before getting their wrists slapped. Right now there's a pervasive stench about the whole product, and it'll take awhile for it to clear before I'll get close to it.
I don't know that much about the license, but even I knew they were pushing it.
Nope, I'll happily stick with Campaign Suite. I happily used it to create a sample character for Necromancer's Legacy (the print edition of Thee Compleat Librum ov Gar Udok's Necromantic Artes) and look forward to using it to do generate our sample characters for the print edition of Librum Equitis 2 (and most likely for all of our releases if Twin Rose can keep up with inputting all of our stuff!)

 

[Teflon Billy]

Gar'Udoks is going to print?

I'll add that to my list for certain

 

[Mynex]

The question I'd like to know the answer to is this: why wasn't PCGEN compliant?

That's not "in what manner was it not compliant?", but "why have the makers waited until now to do so?"

The excuse I keep hearing is "we didn't have a dialogue open with WotC, but now we do". Eh? I don't get it. I'd love to see D20 publishers distributing materials under that rationale. WotC isn't there to teach you about the license and the legalities of it - you're extremely lucky that AV is taking the time to do so now.

It's not like PCGEN was non-compliant on some minor, easily overlooked technical detail. It was very non-compliant in big, obvious ways. Everyone knew it was non-compliant, and said it ad-nauseum. More importantly, there's no way that PCGEN staff couldn't have known it was non-compliant, yet they continued anyway.

So the question is - did you guys do so because you felt you were getting away with it? Or did you honestly believe that you were OK, legally? Or were you under the impression that, lacking a dialogue with WotC, you had the right to do what you liked and that they had some kind of "responsibility" to talk to you and tell you how to do it?

Not that this really matters. You're becoming compliant now, which is cool. And WotC were certainly aware of the software and did nothing until e-Tools was released, so it certainly wasn't harming them in any way. I'm just curious about the reasoning, that's all.

(Responding to multiple posts)

We ARE within copyright laws. People seem to forget that. Don't believe me? contact a copyright and software lawyer, ask them.

Enough with the misdirection and slams please. PCGen IS within rights, WotC asked us to remove the material to bceome OGL/D20 compliant, since that's where we wanted to go anyways, it worked out well.

There was no 'slap on the wrist' or 'misdirection and lies' about what we were doing the data sets, we made it very clear from the get go when we contacted the publishers seeking permission.

Wizards is within their right to ask us to clearly state what was theirs within the program (not just the list files where we DO list the sources). They obviously would like us to be OGL (at a minimum) compliant and if Bryan McRoberts was willing to, it COULD go to court and fight about copyright issues. But he's not. why? Simple, we've been stating from the beginning that we want to be a tool that's for the benefit of the industry and users, and fighting out copyright issues in court is not a good way to foster good will in the industry.

Too many people are armchair lawyering PCGen and it's status... hate to break it to you folks, but not one of you is Bryan McRoberts or Wizards of the Coast. Not one of you is within anything close to reality of knowledge of the situation, for exactly the reason you are neither Bryan or WotC.

If publishers want to withhold support, see what happens, that is their choice and we respect that. We'll be more than happy to include anyone when they are 'happy with how things turn out', hell we'd prefer that... better to withhold support until you are comfortable with everything. But, we've been about for just under 2 yrs now, we are not going anywhere anytime soon.

Time would be better spent on reigning in those users that would distribute E-Tools files for anyone on various sites, without regard to any laws. The people that ARE doing what you accuse PCGen of doing.

 

[Morrus]

Calm down, please, Mynex. People have the right to ask questions - after all, that's why you're here, isn't it?

hate to break it to you folks, but not one of you is Bryan McRoberts or Wizards of the Coast. Not one of you is within anything close to reality of knowledge of the situation, for exactly the reason you are neither Bryan or WotC.

Well, yes. Thus the questions. If we were WotC, we wouldn't be asking them. Your job, presumably, is to answer them, not to deride people for not being "in the know".

Let's keep this friendly, eh? Thanks.