Publishers Opinion Of PCGen

[drothgery]

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.

I'm not a lawyer (and Clark is, though Clark's legal opinion seems to match up pretty well with both my understanding of what the law is, and what I think is 'right'), but I think that the PCGen folks are (or at least were) operating under some serious misunderstandings regarding copyright law.

Major misunderstanding 1: "Game mechanics can't be copyrighted, so if we stick to the numbers, we're okay." This hasn't been tested in court one way or another to my knowledge, but I strongly suspsect it's not true. Yes, a lot of people seem to believe this, but I'm not sure where it comes from.

Major misunderstanding 2: "We're not using the OGL, so we're not bound by it." Clark has already explained why this is not the case. By distributing OGC, you're implicitly agreeing to the OGL.

Major misunderstanding 3: "We're an open source/freeware fan project. We're not making on money off of this, so we're okay." Err, no. Copyright violations are just as illegal whether you are making money or not. If you aren't making money, you may be liable for less in damages if you're sued, but that's about all being fee/open source software gets you.

 

[Knightcrawler]

Thank you Mr. Petersen and Mr. Church for answering those questions. You must understand that when I started this thread it was not my intention for it to go this way.

Several of the comments hit nerves with some of the PCGen crew and they responded defensively and it snow balled from there. It did start out I was looking for honest opinions, but then it seemed to spiral down into an attack on PCGen.

A lot of people have put an enormous amount of work into PCGen. All that blood, sweat and tears tends to make people a little touchy. And the work continues at a hectic pace to get the code and data up to the OGL/D20 specs so that hopefully we can replace the data files that were removed.

Hypothetically, Mr. Petersen, if PCGen did get the OGL/D20 stamp of approval from WotC would that help with some of your concerns? I'm not asking if you would ever let use include your material as sources. But if we did get that would that allay some of your concerns?

It does seem though that you do have your mind set against PCGen. I know nothing about the law, so I'm not going to get into it. Right now we're just going round and round with nothing done. It may come done to that we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Leopold]

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! ).

And allows anyone to use the same material under the same guidelines without having to keep asking for permision. Makes bookeeping and accountability simple. All you have to do is credit your sources and your set. Reminds me of college papers! OYE!

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.

there are rules that apply ONLY to D20 appications. If your D20 you can't have certain things such as: Random Dice rollers, code that plugs in stats or generates HP's. That's all i know off the top of my head, bryan our beneveloent leader or mynex knows more and can fill anyone in that needs to. They have been going round and round (all in a positive manner mind you) with Anthony so they will know the intricicies of the licensing.

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.


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

Which is why there are only a select number of us that go out to publishers and say "Hey we had a request for your product to be inputted into PCGen, what do you say?" and we get their writen approval for it. Sometimes it takes more than a few emails to get the go ahead but in the case of Natural20 Press Morrus said "go for it!" and that's that! (i think that's how it went, putting $10 on it!)

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.

or if it's a fan app try to work with them and see how to make them compliant. IF they absoultely refuse by all means sic anthony on 'em!

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. [/B]

Howdy D20DWarf! I saw allot of neat things from FFG for the future and finally got to meet my hero greg benege from DragonStar! Shame I didn't get him to sign my book . Oh well there is next year and you best be at the G2 game next year Wil! I am starting it earlier to make sure everyone can play, you wuss out on me and I am taking back every good thing I said about you!

 

[2WS-Steve]

Software and the OGL

I was under the impression that PCGen had operated in the past under the don't ask/don't tell rule...

There's been some debate regarding this on the OGF lists but the debate at least appears to remain open so I'll mention one way you might be able to do OGL compliant software.

You write the client software as a perfectly generic engine that includes no hard-coded rules derivative of any open content. This fornt-end software operates a bit like a database that can perform some special operations based on the code in data files stored separately.

The data for making this work with any particular gaming system, such as d20, is all stored in human readable text files. All these text files get released under the open gaming license and probably the entirety of the text files is open content. Make sure the text files all have an attached open gaming license properly updated.

Bruce Kvam's software, Metacreator, already works like this. Since it was around well before the d20 system and already supports a variety of other game systems (via special license) it seems pretty clear that the Metacreator front-end isn't derivative of the SRD. All the template files and other material needed to use the Metacreator front end with the d20 System could be stored and distributed as text files and, I take it, those could be released under the OGL.

I thought this was where PCGen was going and the died-too-soon Medusa project by Jamis Buck was going. I believe that's the way other SRD based software tries to work such as Campaign Suite and DM's Familiar.

Open Software gurus on the OGF lists as well as Ryan Dancey seemed to think that even this had potential problems; something about the viral nature of open licenses infecting the front end. Frankly, I don't see why since all you're really doing is releasing open content text files under the OGL but smart people feel it's an issue.

The possibility of actually releasing a software product under the d20 STL is much more problematic. This depends heavily on the interpretation of "Interactive Game" as defined in the D20 System Guide and particulalrly how one interprets "use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs". In reality it depends a lot more on how WotC feels about possibly competing character construction software since they can change the d20 guide to close up any loopholes if they want.

Personally, I'm more interested in the viability of an OGL compliant software product.

 

[Twin Rose]

So they say, but as a veteran spectator of the often seen software wars on the open game foundation listservers, I have my doubts. If so, one would hope that they would come forward and prove their case. I've expressed these concerns over the last few months, and nothing has been done to alleviate them. Until that happens, I cannot see them as anything but non-compliant based on the voluminous discussions that have occurred on those dedicated lists.

The technical specifications are difficult to explain in casual discussion, but I've been working specifically with WOTC - not against - for some time. I live in the Seattle area, which benefits us in that I am able to directly work with them.

That said, teh Campaign Suite "engine" itself can be used as a generic engine. You can remove saving throws all together, implement "character Points" and change feats to advantages/disadvantages and have a very different game. By itself, the software isn't d20 or OGl or anything else. It has no rules, no classes, no recognition of what stats are called. It needs the datafile, which becomes a script, to run. In essence, a PDF can be D20 - adobe acrobat is not.

The proof will come officially soon, but by the terms of acceptance of the D20 license - one which I enjoy - we will correct any problems that come up in these talks .. And we're going through the software AND data files with WOTC with a fine-toothed comb. Skipping character generation rules, and allowing the user to input them, became the strongest method we were able to come up with and I believe that it holds.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Thanks for the explanation Chris, and I'm eagerly awaiting the results of your talks. I'm not attacking the idea of OGL software, in fact I'm all for it and I can't wait to get my stuff in once my curiosity and concerns have been satisfied. I think you're doing a great job and service by working so hard to provide this type of product.

 

[Twin Rose]

Re: Software and the OGL

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

With any amount of luck, the work that we have been doing will bare fruit in the very near future and a list will be made of what is okay and what is not. At this time, I will in fact post my findings along with the official ones from WOTC, in that I can show people how -I- did it.

You write the client software as a perfectly generic engine that includes no hard-coded rules derivative of any open content. This fornt-end software operates a bit like a database that can perform some special operations based on the code in data files stored separately.

This is the assumption that we are working under at this time, and has in fact been proven in some cases involving software in the past. The more generic, the better, is the essence of it - you just need to make it powerful enough that the data file "script" can shape the game properly.

This, also, I believe means you should not find a 'loophole' by releasing a D20 software and then a "patch" that is "OGL" whicha llows more leway, but I've seen this possibility discussed on a couple of other message boards and threads. While technically legal - Publisher A could come out with their new game, and then release a "3 page module" that is OGL compliant that includes chargen rules. I just believe it would be underhanded to do.

 

[Fractalwave]

Software and the OGL and the d20stl

Nice post Steve. You forgot just a couple small things. It also depends on what Wotc's intent was when they created the licenses and what they intend to do going forward.

They can decide that software can't be licensed under the d20stl at all or decide that software can't be ogl compliant. They can decide to create a seperate license for software. They can tell everyone to go jump in a lake at which point I might do that considering the humidity and temperature here lately.

There are a couple of gray areas which is why we're working directly with Wotc. Our hope is that the clarification we're all seeking will happen.

 

[Orcus]

Hypothetically, Mr. Petersen, if PCGen did get the OGL/D20 stamp of approval from WotC would that help with some of your concerns? I'm not asking if you would ever let use include your material as sources. But if we did get that would that allay some of your concerns?

Yes. I have already said that if you guys get compliant and show nice responsible compliance for a period of time I would of reconsider my position.

I didnt mean to attack PCGen. The thread was started asking for comments from publishers. I said as a publisher I had problems for the stated reasons. Thats not an attack, or I didnt feel it to be.

As for blood sweat and tears I fully understand. People get upset when something they work on is criticized. My team is the same way. No hard feelings.

Clark

 

[Unseelie]

Okay, long time lurker, first time poster...

--

Just read through all of the posts here, and I think I mostly get it. However, I'm still wondering about Mynex's comments in regards to eTools and datafiles being created for it.

If I understand this, as eTools is not itself OGL compliant, the publishers (WotC) can not release it with OGC data.

If someone else (not WotC/Fluid) decides to put together a series of datafiles (XML/plaintext/whatever) that carefully only uses existing OGC data, and happens to work with eTools, would this be valid?

I'm guessing that said datafile would themselves have to be OGL'd (wow, I can verb nouns) to be legal.

About all I'm sure of right now, sleep deprived and all, is that it seems like it would be a bad idea for WotC or Fluid to assist, or facilitate the fans distributing of OGC datafiles without seperate license from the original publishers.