Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Luke" data-source="post: 306859" data-attributes="member: 602">- I don't need to use Access to import from Access.- WotC has been reasonable with the SRD so far. They did add Psionics. They claimed on the official OGL list that they were waiting on staffing to add Epic as well (I *think* it was Epic). The SRD content (the foundation for virtually every D20 publisher), has been grounded on content largely in the draft stage for a ridiculous amount of time. When you consider, however, all the retrenchments and restructuring WotC has experienced over the last year, there's plenty of room to allow for the benefit of the doubt.- I don't think that WotC can use the SRD to get our material. If you build on the SRD with closed material, it's *yours*. That's why you don't (and won't) see wizards republishing other D20 publisher work.- What do you mean by non-SRD files? The system is inherently expandable, and this is fundamental to the licenses. When you add to it, you designate new content as being open (not copyright, and freely usable), or closed (you're not allowed to redistribute yourself).In a nutshell, the rules of redistribution of data/rules go as follows:- SRD is fine, as long as you comply with either the D20 or OGL licences.- WotC non-SRD material is not okay. There's simply no avenue there except a special license (very expensive) or permission. This stuff is covered by neither the D20 or OGL licenses, being beyond both since Wizards own it.- 3rd party publishers must themselves adhere to either the D20 or OGL licenses for anything they produce, and anything they designate as "open" is okay for anyone to use. You, in turn must adhere to the "virul" license the content is published under.Till now PCGen has operated under neither the OGL or D20 licenses, simply "breaking" copyright. The approach was to use any material they could get their hands on, and use it until there was a complaint from the copyright owner. My understanding is that complainants often entered into discussion with the PCGen crew, and then agreed to have their source material included in PCGen. I'm pretty darn sure that WotC themselves never gave permission (hence the recent withdrawal of non-SRD Wizards material).PCGen was certainly in an interesting position till now (and this may continue ).  Essentially, they had a "critical mass" making them the sole standard, where any D20 publisher *not* allowing their material to be included was disadvantaged competitively with other D20 publishers.The interesting thing now is whether E-Tools may be in a position to take over that role. It may well be that D20 publishers may prefer their material to be E-Tools compatible (or maybe both).Regardless of all this, and whatever the future brings, we can all agree that PCGen has played an *extremely* significant role in providing a crucial service to gamers up to this point. Mynex, Leopold, and the crew have done an amazing job. After all, why did WotC allow such a massive violation till now. They created a (brilliant) 3rd edition set of mechanics that screams for software support, and until now they couldn't provide it themselves. Whilst the crackdown does seem cruelly timed (within days of the E-Tools release), WotC have established a precedent for "D20 house cleaning" at Cons, and they're relying on big initial ETools sales to stop the project from dying. They must have poured over a million into it's development by now (if you consider all the trashed early mapper, graphics and sound work ). I'm sure that PCGen is a large part of the reason that many D&D consumers persisted with 3rd edition, and it's a shame that WotC will probably not really be able to thank PCGen for the great assistance it has provided in helping prop up 3rd edition till now...Regards,</blockquote>

Verification