Publishers Opinion Of PCGen

[Mynex]

No, they havent been answered. You were told over and over on the d20 lists that PCGen wasnt compliant. Ryan even said it (back when he was with WotC). I believe SSS even asked you to remove the SSS-based content from your files. That was a long time ago. Everyone was telling you that you werent OGL compliant. But you didnt do anything until WotC came to you. Why was that? Thats all we want to know.

As far as attacks on me, I dont care about that. Frankly things speak for themselves when you ask for opinions and then cry when you get them.

As for Mynex's comment:



The differnce from one to two was giving you a break. I thought you were irresponsible before, but if you play properly for a reasonable period of time I would reconsider. If you want, I can go back to my first position of "no way."

As for my decision to license things to etools, PCGen and etools are different and the content would be handled by different licenses. I dont care if you understand the difference or not. The bottom line is it is my content and my call about who to license it to.

You all can spin it however you want.

Clark

In short we are within copyright laws. Forget D20/OGL issues at the moment. We are and have been within copyright laws. Yes there were issues over even that at the very beginning, those issues were resolved with the addiotions of the SOURCE tags that must be included in every list file (and have been for over a year.

Now, as to why now we're going OGL, again, we've been saying and working towards that for the last year. We've made no secret of that fact, but I can't recall if it's been discussed outside the PCGen Yahoo group or not, if not, then I'll make sure in the future to make posts about things of that nature to boards outside the yahoo PCGen group.

It most certainly is your license, and yes, you most certainly can do as you wish with it, never said anything else about it.

As for 'spinning it however we want' The same spins are being placed on PCGen... People are missing or intentionally avoiding the fact there IS a difference between copyright and OGL, that we've never claimed to be OGL, that we've been straight up about that with everyone. People are spinning it against PCGen even though we were already at 95% OGL compliancy with our production 3.0.0... people are also conveniantly leaving out the fact that not all of the sources were included of the publishers we had full permissions for becuase we were only releasing sources that we felt were 95%+ supported via code and the list files were correct, current and completely working...

SSS has never asked us to remove anything... I know Bryan hasn't been asked to remove anything from them... and we're the 2 you would/should ask for that...

As for 'playing properly' all I can say to that is wait and see. I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised in short order.

 

[Mynex]

I am an attorney and no you weren't in compliance. Your use was not within the fair use exception and the material you were using was released pursuant to a specific license that you were not in compliance with.

As for PCGen being singled out, I thought this thread was "Publishers Opinions of PCGen"?

Clark

No offense intended Clark, but are you specialised in the field of copyright and software laws? If not, then you _may_ be missing some aspects... if you are, then why wait until a public forum to address them? Why not address them in private, offering (of course for a fee) to help PCGen reach those goals you think we have fallen short of? Hell, even offer that publically.

As for being singled out, yes, this thread is specifically asking about PCGen, but consider how many other threads have had PCGen in them that had nothing to do with the conversation at hand... I was making generalized statements before is all...

 

[Orcus]

1) Clark, Wil, and others. I'm not a legal whiz. I'm not a publisher. However, it seems to me that when you claim you're d20 compliant (by placing the logo on your product) then the burden of action is not on you to get some sort of certification of compliancy - rather, the burden is on WotC to determine on their own and send a C&D or open up some dialogue.

In otherwords, if FFG or NG were to publish a product and place a d20 System Logo on it, they are not required to go to WotC and get it approved. Rather, if WotC has a problem with it, they will get in contact with the publisher.

True, you dont have to get approval. But it is your burden to be in compliance. Its not up to WotC to hunt you down. And even if WotC does nothing (which they did for a long time) yet I see they arent compliant--by blatantly using non_OGC for example--then I know to stay away from them.

If I'm right does this also apply to software vendors?

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.

2) I also would like an answer to Morrus' questions.

Agreed.

3) Mynex or other PCGen folks, could you comment as to the compatability of the OGL/d20 STL with software licenses, such as the CopyLeft?

You are getting off track on this. There is only one licnese for the use of OGC--the OGL and the d20 STL. None of the other ones matter.

4) Are there any legal cases supporting the defense of "fair use" with regard to including OGC if a given product is not OGL compliant?

No. The OGC/OGL etc is entirely untested legally. You also will most likely not see what you asked for because the OGL is not actually a copyright issue. The OGL is a license. Compliance or lack of compliance will be a license issue not a copyright issue. Use of OGC constitutes acceptance of the license.

5) If a company were to give permission to use material for which that company does not have rights, does that mean that the permission is valid? Is it up to the product implementing said material to determine on it's own the legality of including such material?

No. A company cant give permission for people to use content they dont own. Makes sense of course. I'm not sure I understand the second part. You always have to determine if you are actually acquiring the permission you believe you are acquiring. But with PCGen that wasnt the case. They were using non-OGC and were told over and over they couldnt use it.

6) Would I be mistaken in saying that as long as Wizards does not use OGC material they play by a different set of rules as the OGC publishers?

Right.

If they do decide to include OGC content in a product they would have to make that product comply with the OGL? Would this be true even if a publisher gave WotC permission to include OGC in a closed product?

For example, if Publisher x released OGC y, WotC would have to release a product subject to the OGL if they included y in their product no matter what.

If they used OGC they would have to make an OGL-compliant product. They could also, as they did with us, contact the owner of the content and license it to use it in a non-OGL product.

7) I would be interested to know if any publisher granted permission to a product publisher to use OGC material because they assumed that the product was OGL compliant, even if it wasn't. Can any publisher comment on that? (Note that this is not referring to PCGen per se. I see some other products that include OGC content from publishers.)

OGC use isnt about permission. YOu dont need to get it. I have argued it is proper to do so, but not legally required. One of the reasons I have advocated this is to avoid problems like the one you mention.

Follow up to that - if a non-compliant product includes OGC, can that damage the OGL itself? Clark discussed on another thread the dangers (to the secondary and tertiary publisher )of using secondary sources for a tertiary product, could this be along the same lines?

Yep. That is a problem. The tertiary user could be in violation without realizing it. Of course, that would only result if the tertiary publisher was silly enough not to check the original material.

8) Question to the publishers - does WotC actually do any sort of compliancy certification for a given product?

If not, is it a double standard to expect such a thing for a software company?

No, WotC doesnt do approval per se. But I have worked closely with them on a few things.

Is it a double standard? No, it is a different thing entirely. The OGL is pretty simple. You can use OGC if you follow the license. It is clear what is NOT OGC. PCGen used stuff that is clearly not OGC.

Would WotC issuing a statement that says that software per se is not automatically non-compliant be sufficient, along with the standard protections afforded by the license, be sufficient for those of you hesitant to allow your material to be included in software?

I dont know. Interesting idea. Previous WotC representatives have advocated that the d20 STL and OGL were not particularly software friendly. It seems (though this is not confirmed) that by working with PCGen WotC is saying that it might be possible to be compliant (though I dont know the full details of their agreement/discussion).

My hesitancy has always been their blatant misuse of non-OGC and of PI. The software issue was a seperate but more general issue. So even if that was cured I would still have my primary issue needing to be resolved.

Again, I certainly hold no animosity towards PCGen or any other product for that matter. I have seen several things bandied about and would like for some word from the important parties.

Agreed. But I am somewhat surprised at their reaction in a thread where they solicit opinions. Perhaps they didnt expect negative comments.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

[qutoe]
if you are, then why wait until a public forum to address them? Why not address them in private, offering (of course for a fee) to help PCGen reach those goals you think we have fallen short of?
[/quote]

Funny you mention that. I have been approached a number of times to be "the d20 attorney."

The problem is that with so many companies in so many states I would have to possibly make appearances in so many jurisdictions the situation isnt really workable. Plus, I dont want the overhead. In addition, d20 companies are pretty low overhead and frankly, I couldnt charge them a fee high enough to justify doing the work. Plus, given the sloppiness I have seen, I dont think I want to clean up some of the messes.

In addition, and the most significant issue, is that I am ethically prohibited from doing so given my current employment as a government attorney, from obtaining such employment. Outside of my current employment as a government attorney, I am only allowed to represent my personal concerns (my business, etc) and family. That means, to be the d20 attorney I would have to quit my government job which I dont want to do. Unless you want to pay me a sick amount of money and give me civil service protection and a full pension. See the problem...

Why did I wait to a public forum to address them? I didnt. I have said on the d20 lists for a long time that PCGen wasnt compliant.

You must not have been paying much attention to the relevant discussions about the legal issues of the OGL/d20 SRD--which I have been a vocal part of since the very inception.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

I like how this is now about me and what I did or didnt do and not about the fact that PCGen was flagrantly not in compliance.

Spin baby spin!

Clark

 

[enrious]

Clark, thanks for answering so promptly!

I do have a few follow ups to your post.

True, you dont have to get approval. But it is your burden to be in compliance. Its not up to WotC to hunt you down. And even if WotC does nothing (which they did for a long time) yet I see they arent compliant--by blatantly using non_OGC for example--then I know to stay away from them.

Makes sense.

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.

Interesting. Learn something new everyday.

You are getting off track on this. There is only one licnese for the use of OGC--the OGL and the d20 STL. None of the other ones matter.

I brought up the matter of Open Source licenses for software being used in conjunction with the OGL only because Ryan on more than one occasion said that he felt that some of the provisions of the licenses (such as the Copyleft, IIRC) were incompatible.

No. The OGC/OGL etc is entirely untested legally. You also will most likely not see what you asked for because the OGL is not actually a copyright issue. The OGL is a license. Compliance or lack of compliance will be a license issue not a copyright issue. Use of OGC constitutes acceptance of the license.

I asked that because the PCGen folks said that because they did not follow the OGL, they were not bound by it, only standard copyright laws.

No. A company cant give permission for people to use content they dont own. Makes sense of course. I'm not sure I understand the second part. You always have to determine if you are actually acquiring the permission you believe you are acquiring. But with PCGen that wasnt the case. They were using non-OGC and were told over and over they couldnt use it.

I was thinking of PCGen saying that WotC had granted permission for the inclusion of Star Wars and Wheel of Time material into PCGen. It's my understanding (as a layman) that PCGen could have been in trouble because they used that material without permission from Lucasfilms or R. Jordan. I wonder if it'd also mean WotC could have been in trouble.

Of course, that all gets back, I think, to fair use of copyrighted materials.

I'm not a legal expert and not trying to impose an opinion - I gladly acknowledge that there are experts present and defer to their opinion.

If they used OGC they would have to make an OGL-compliant product. They could also, as they did with us, contact the owner of the content and license it to use it in a non-OGL product.

So Open Content is not only open? In other words, if I release something as OGC under the OGL, I also retain the rights to it to allow for distribution under something that doesn't follow the OGL?

You release a PrC as OGC. Wizards comes to you and makes arraingements to include that PrC in one of their closed products. The PrC is available as both OGC and CGC, but other OGL publishers can only use it from the OGC source, correct?

OGC use isnt about permission. YOu dont need to get it. I have argued it is proper to do so, but not legally required. One of the reasons I have advocated this is to avoid problems like the one you mention.

I can use PCGen as an example to my question. PCGen, which was not OGL compliant approached many OGL companies and asked for permission to include their data sets in PCGen. Mind you, this was done as a polite request, not really seeking permission (from what I understand).

I'm just asking if there were any publisher who agreed because they believed that a given product (in this case PCGen) followed the OGL when it didn't.

Is it a double standard? No, it is a different thing entirely. The OGL is pretty simple. You can use OGC if you follow the license. It is clear what is NOT OGC. PCGen used stuff that is clearly not OGC.

Stepping away from PCGen for a moment, what would your respone to this question be to a software program in general?

 

[d20Dwarf]

I'm neither a lawyer nor a publisher, but I do consider myself fairly well-informed on OGL issues (and I have no agenda, which I've seen cloud the judgment of other well-informed people ). That said, as a matter of interest I'm going to respond to the questions below, since I was addressed.

1) Clark, Wil, and others. I'm not a legal whiz. I'm not a publisher. However, it seems to me that when you claim you're d20 compliant (by placing the logo on your product) then the burden of action is not on you to get some sort of certification of compliancy - rather, the burden is on WotC to determine on their own and send a C&D or open up some dialogue.

In otherwords, if FFG or NG were to publish a product and place a d20 System Logo on it, they are not required to go to WotC and get it approved. Rather, if WotC has a problem with it, they will get in contact with the publisher.

Am I right on this?

If I'm right does this also apply to software vendors?

We do not have to get WotC approval, that's why we use the Open Game License. It allows us to use D&D rules without WotC approval (hi Kenzer! ).

The burden of proof isn't the issue, though. The way you present your question makes you sound more roguish than I hope you intend. A publisher should be responsible in his application of both licenses. WotC hasn't had to come down hard yet, but that's because we try as a community to be fairly self-policing and helpful. We discourage people who try to get around the licenses or see how far they have to push WotC before they get in trouble.

It is simply bad for everyone, thus as publishers I think we have a responsibility to not endorse or support products (print, electronic, or otherwise) that are either not in compliance or who fail to prove compliance.

Now, it is easy for me to check compliance on a print product. I look at the license, see if it was complied with. Electronic products are MUCH more difficult, and have been discussed ad nauseum on the lists. It has never been proven to me that an electronic product CAN be compliant, much less if this one or that one are. In fact, the conventional thought says that software can't be compliant, unless I believe it's source is laid bare and declared OGC. I could be wrong on that one. Thus, the burden of proof is definitely on the software creator, especially if they want responsible companies to sign on and donate content.

4) Are there any legal cases supporting the defense of "fair use" with regard to including OGC if a given product is not OGL compliant?

As far as I know, there have been no legal cases at all concerning OGL issues. I bet Clark knows, though.

5) If a company were to give permission to use material for which that company does not have rights, does that mean that the permission is valid? Is it up to the product implementing said material to determine on it's own the legality of including such material?

Of course you do not have legal control over something that is not yours. It is absolutely up to the person using content they do not own to determine the legality of such an action. To do otherwise is extremely stupid.

6) Would I be mistaken in saying that as long as Wizards does not use OGC material they play by a different set of rules as the OGC publishers? If they do decide to include OGC content in a product they would have to make that product comply with the OGL? Would this be true even if a publisher gave WotC permission to include OGC in a closed product?

For example, if Publisher x released OGC y, WotC would have to release a product subject to the OGL if they included y in their product no matter what.

Wizards owns D&D, they define the rules. The OGL is their way of allowing us to use D&D content without infringing on their valuable property. They would likely never use the OGL in a product. If they had to use 3rd party content, they would likely negotiate a separate license. Perhaps Clark can fill us in on the terms of agreement for the creatures from the CC being used int eh MM2.

A publisher does not give up his ownership to content by publishing under the OGL, he merely gives permission to other pubilshers to use the content as long as they do so properly. Thus, he is free to license out his content in any way he wishes outside the boundaries of the OGL.

So the answer to your last question is no, they could negotiate a separate license to avoid using the OGL.

7) I would be interested to know if any publisher granted permission to a product publisher to use OGC material because they assumed that the product was OGL compliant, even if it wasn't. Can any publisher comment on that? (Note that this is not referring to PCGen per se. I see some other products that include OGC content from publishers.)

Follow up to that - if a non-compliant product includes OGC, can that damage the OGL itself? Clark discussed on another thread the dangers (to the secondary and tertiary publisher )of using secondary sources for a tertiary product, could this be along the same lines?

A publisher does not have to grant permission for his OGC to be used. That is the point of the OGL.

The OGL cannot be damaged in a sense, but WotC's trust and committment to the concept of Open Gaming certainly could be.

8) Question to the publishers - does WotC actually do any sort of compliancy certification for a given product?

If not, is it a double standard to expect such a thing for a software company?

Would WotC issuing a statement that says that software per se is not automatically non-compliant be sufficient, along with the standard protections afforded by the license, be sufficient for those of you hesitant to allow your material to be included in software?

Again, you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. It is not about whether or not WotC checks every single product out there, it is a matter of being a responsible businessperson and obeying the licenses. Neither WotC nor 3rd party publishers want to deal with these issues on a case by case basis, that's part of the beauty of open gaming. Part of me wishes WotC would really come down hard on blatant violators so that people would realize it is a serious business.

The difference between software and print is that the license has never been shown to be compliant with software at all. Since there is no standard, I think it is in everyone's best interest that a software company that has figured out how to be compliant share that information with the rest of the Open Gaming community. Print publishers are very open and willing to discuss license issues on the OGF lists, so if a software company has devised a way to be compliant they should let everyone know. They certainly are aware of the opinion of the vast majority on those lists that it simply cannot be done.

Again, I don't have to allow anyone to put OGC in a product governed by the OGL. But, if I see my content being used in a non-compliant manner you can bet I'll be firing off an email to Anthony asap.

It also helps to be civil. Every print publisher I've worked with has been, but this thread shows a decidedly different tone from the software side. (This is not to say I have anything personal against anyone, in fact I met the PCGen team at Gencon and they seemed cool. Hi Leopold!).

Damn, this went on so long I bet Clark has already answered.

 

[Leopold]

I like how this is now about me and what I did or didnt do and not about the fact that PCGen was flagrantly not in compliance.

Spin baby spin!

Clark

this has never been about "Get Clark and Necro!". In fact this was about how publishers used and felt about PCGen and the material therin.

Now i understand that allot has come your way Clark, heck you posted the most so can you blame us?


But going back to one comment you made: How publishers asked over and over again to remove their source from PCGen.

I can count how many publishers asked us to remover their source BEFORE GenCon: 0. Not one. Not one we put in asked us to remove it. Not one single solitary one that said "Tear out that code you don't have the companies permission to use it!" I spoke to SSS a long time ago and they forwarded it up the chain of command and came back down to us and we responded with more information but never heard back from them. From my knowledge, and someone correct me if I am mistaken, but we never recieved such a letter from SSS to remove the files.

Pre GenCon release we had all those publishers with whom we had dialouge and permission to use. The companies that said "No you do not have my permission" were never inputted and distrubuted. If they were, that's news to me. WOTC's files go back a long long long way and that's a discussion that Bryan can answer better than myself, but there was dialouge between the PCgen team and WOTC stretching back a very long time.

At the current we are using only those publishers whom we have both writen and/or verbal agreemen to input their material into PCGen. With those of whom want us to input their work by all means send it our way. For all those who feel we are doing their company a diservice and do not wish to be a part of the project, please email and tell us. We are looking out for the best intrests of all parties, be you a gamer, a GM or a publisher. We want what's best for the community as a whole regardless of what role you play within it.

so folks, let's keep the discussion moving and constructive. Clark, it's nothing personal, it's only business. And since your a govt lawyer you know business is business and this is by NO means personal against you, your company, or anyone in particular.

This thread is all about PCGen and the publishers opinion be it bad, good, negative, positive, etc. Post what you feel PCGen has or has not done for you and how we can improve upon it to benefit not only your companies but the community as well.

 

[enrious]

The burden of proof isn't the issue, though. The way you present your question makes you sound more roguish than I hope you intend. A publisher should be responsible in his application of both licenses. WotC hasn't had to come down hard yet, but that's because we try as a community to be fairly self-policing and helpful. We discourage people who try to get around the licenses or see how far they have to push WotC before they get in trouble.

And to add something to that, if I may, is that most of the publishers are a community in their own right. I would certainly hope that the desire to do the right thing is not absent (and all evidence I've seen is to the contrary).

And it's not a roguish point of view, in my opinion - after all, at no point did my question discuss the intent I know there have been companies that have mistakenly and unintentionally violated the OGL - but my point is that they didn't have to go to WotC and get approval to publish the product. WotC (and no doubt some others in the publishing community) noticed and informed the publisher. A responsible publisher would make corrections and implement steps to make it more unlikely for such things to occur again.

It is simply bad for everyone, thus as publishers I think we have a responsibility to not endorse or support products (print, electronic, or otherwise) that are either not in compliance or who fail to prove compliance.

Part of the good benefits of a responsible community.

Now, it is easy for me to check compliance on a print product. I look at the license, see if it was complied with. Electronic products are MUCH more difficult, and have been discussed ad nauseum on the lists. It has never been proven to me that an electronic product CAN be compliant, much less if this one or that one are. In fact, the conventional thought says that software can't be compliant, unless I believe it's source is laid bare and declared OGC. I could be wrong on that one. Thus, the burden of proof is definitely on the software creator, especially if they want responsible companies to sign on and donate content.

Hmm...I understand your point about the burden of proof being on software because of the conventional paradigm (in part I believe to some of Ryan's comments).

Can you think of anything that would change your opinion on the matter?

A publisher does not give up his ownership to content by publishing under the OGL, he merely gives permission to other pubilshers to use the content as long as they do so properly. Thus, he is free to license out his content in any way he wishes outside the boundaries of the OGL.

So the answer to your last question is no, they could negotiate a separate license to avoid using the OGL.

Ah, that explains it. And incidently points out that much of the "double standard" charges against Wizards, Fluid, and WotC to be uninformed, IMO.

 

[Orcus]

I asked that because the PCGen folks said that because they did not follow the OGL, they were not bound by it, only standard copyright laws.

Nice try, but no. The license is triggered by Use of OGC. The license applies to PCGen and they are in violation. Plus use of d20 logo and/or the d20 trademark or the trademarked phrase D&D and/or Dungeons and Dragons is problematic, even if there were operating solely under copyright law and outside of the license (which they arent).

I was thinking of PCGen saying that WotC had granted permission for the inclusion of Star Wars and Wheel of Time material into PCGen. It's my understanding (as a layman) that PCGen could have been in trouble because they used that material without permission from Lucasfilms or R. Jordan. I wonder if it'd also mean WotC could have been in trouble.

WotC could grant that right if such discretion was given by Lucas or Jordan to WotC. My understanding is that WotC did not recieve such permission. But use of the SW content was just one of their problems.

So Open Content is not only open? In other words, if I release something as OGC under the OGL, I also retain the rights to it to allow for distribution under something that doesn't follow the OGL?

You release a PrC as OGC. Wizards comes to you and makes arraingements to include that PrC in one of their closed products. The PrC is available as both OGC and CGC, but other OGL publishers can only use it from the OGC source, correct?

Right on! As long as I am the creator of non-OGC derived content I can license it how I see fit.

I can use PCGen as an example to my question. PCGen, which was not OGL compliant approached many OGL companies and asked for permission to include their data sets in PCGen. Mind you, this was done as a polite request, not really seeking permission (from what I understand).

Right. And that would be fine. Of course, why you would tie your wagon to a noncompliant ship I dont know. But it is surely within their rights to do so. And several have. Not me. But in this instance, unlike reusing OGC which can be done without permission presuming compliance with the OGL, it would have to be with permission.

I'm just asking if there were any publisher who agreed because they believed that a given product (in this case PCGen) followed the OGL when it didn't.

Dont know.

Stepping away from PCGen for a moment, what would your respone to this question be to a software program in general?

Not sure I follow your question.

The OGL creates a safe harbor so that we can play with WotC content and they dont have to sue infringers of their copyrights and trademarks. Thats the concept. If PCGen thinks they can craft an argument as to why they are operating outside that safe harbor, fine. But I wont be sailing there with them. Now they are trying to be compliant. Great. I hope they do get compliant. I have said over and over again that I thought PCGen filled a huge need for the gaming public.

Clark