What's up with PCGen???

[KenM]

What conflict of interest?

Well, CMP is bassically supporting two programs that basically do the same thing. Etools and PCgen. That can lead to a conflict of intrest, IMO.

 

[kingpaul]

Well, CMP is bassically supporting two programs that basically do the same thing. Etools and PCgen. That can lead to a conflict of intrest, IMO.

CMP and PCGen are separate entities though. Yes, there is some overlap in the leadership, but they are separate entities.

I ask again, what conflict of interest?

 

[tburdett]

If you cannot see the possible conflict of interest in having CMP employees / owners (who are out to make money by selling datasets) on the PCGen BoD (who provide datasets free of charge), no one will ever be able to point it out to you.

But, for the sake of argument, let me try.

If CMP derives income from selling datasets, it is in their best interest to keep the free PCGen datasets as minimalist as possible to encourage people to buy fully detailed datasets from CMP. It is also in their best interest to convince IP holders (like Monte Cook) to release their IP via CMP rather than for free. The long term result being that no new free content is released via PCGen because CMP has paid for the rights to release that material. CMP benefits while PCGen declines.

The perception or possibility of these events, whether true or not, is what creates a possible conflict of interest.

Altruism is a great concept, but because so few people actually do anything altruistic, people generally view those who do with a large amount of skepticism.

 

[kingpaul]

If CMP derives income from selling datasets, it is in their best interest to keep the free PCGen datasets as minimalist as possible to encourage people to buy fully detailed datasets from CMP.

CMP does not require exclusivity with any of their licensees...as has been said mutliple times in multiple places. In fact, Bastion Press, on of the licensees, has no problem with having their datasets distributed by both CMP, for pay, and PCGen, for free.

It is also in their best interest to convince IP holders (like Monte Cook) to release their IP via CMP rather than for free.

That was the choice of the Cooks'. I was the publisher liaison at the time. I approached them about including AU in PCGen. They said they wanted to charge. PCGen did not then, and does not now, have an apparatus to charge for datasets.

The long term result being that no new free content is released via PCGen because CMP has paid for the rights to release that material.

And that is an issue that has been brought up with the sudden firestorm on the boards. The question, for the most part, devolves from "When to release?" "Early and often, as long as it passes OGL compliance and doesn't break PCGen" or "When the data set is completely entered, cleared OGL copliance, has been through QA and publisher review". CMP did not have an influence on this issue.

CMP benefits while PCGen declines.

How does PCGen decline? It is an open source project. The code is under the LGPL and the data is under the OGL. IF someone wants, they can, at any time, fork the code, and start from there.

The perception or possibility of these events, whether true or not, is what creates a possible conflict of interest.

And that was why I was asking. People say there are conflicts of interest. Fine, but what are the perceptions, so they may be addressed.

Has that cleared anything up for you?

 

[d20books]

My SINGLE post, email me off-forums if you want to continue

While I call it a schism, it is not really going to break up PCGen. Both sides will agree to disagree and some small changes will occur to accommodate both sides, but the project will go on.

I agree that there is a conflict of interest. I'm in the process of creating a non-profit organization that will act as a free distribution point as a counter-weight to CMP. One of the PCGen Doc Monkeys is willing to sit down and address my concerns over a procedural document about how third party organizations interacts with the PCGen governing body. Partly, this was to help the non-profit but also to outline and draw clear lines between PCGen and CMP. I cannot get "Merton_Monk" to even admit that CMP is a third-party organization. I specifically want to sit down with Merton and the Doc Monkey so that this can be resolved. It doesn't look like it is going to happen.

The original blow-up stems from a bunch of issues, but the last straw was the PCGen BoD claiming that all LST files were theirs by virtue that they were PCGen files. Donating the files is one thing. Once they are donated, they are PCGen's. Taking the files before they are given is theft. Check out the meeting log. Very revealing.

At present, I'm trying to creat the non-profit that will be registered with the IRS as such. That would mean that all donations would be tax deductible. As a legal entity (which PCGen is not), we would be able to work out formal arrangements with the various parties involved. I believe that it is the only way to do things to make the files available for the PCGen users (for free), keep the LST Monkeys that do the files secure and making new LST files for the community, and also give the publishers another outlet for their OGC.

I have the by-laws for the non-profit on my D20books Yahoo Group. There seems to be a problem with me putting a particular PCGen Board member on the sheet. He seems to be getting harassed now by the various PCGen powers that be because they now see him as a traitor now too. All the names, including mine, are preliminary and speculative placeholders for now. The other thing to note about the by-laws is how its govering body is an elected body and how the community is encouraged to participate in things, even if just to be witness to everything to make sure it is all on the up-and-up. Even a bunch of the CMP and PCGen BoD could be elected to the new non-profit if the community so desired. I set things up so no one side in the schism had control and the community would decide things.

Again, I'm still a PCGen user and everyone on all sides of the argument are still PCGen users. It is why we are there arguing about it all. If we didn't give a darn, we would have just left quietly and said "screw-it" and left everyone to their own devices.

 

[tburdett]

That was the choice of the Cooks'. I was the publisher liaison at the time. I approached them about including AU in PCGen. They said they wanted to charge. PCGen did not then, and does not now, have an apparatus to charge for datasets.

If CMP did not exist, the Cooks' would probably not have considered charging for the material because, as you say, there was no entity to facilitate this. Their past practice of allowing material to be included for free is an example of this.

How does PCGen decline? It is an open source project. The code is under the LGPL and the data is under the OGL. IF someone wants, they can, at any time, fork the code, and start from there.

PCGen declines because any publisher is going to choose the model that rewards them financially. CMP is that model. Yes, it is possible that some publishers will still allow their material to be included free of charge, but it is obviously going to be a stripped down (perceived to be lower quality) version of what CMP releases.

Has that cleared anything up for you?

I have read, and understand, where both sides of this are coming from. As an outsider it looks like an extremely ugly and messy situation. As I said in my last reply, any statements of altruism on the part of CMP are going to be looked at skeptically, especially when they have the most to gain financially by NOT being altruistic.

 

[kingpaul]

The original blow-up stems from a bunch of issues, but the last straw was the PCGen BoD claiming that all LST files were theirs by virtue that they were PCGen files.

That's not my take on what the last straw was. I think it was the fact that most of us considered LMC an arm of PCGen, not an independent entity.

 

[kingpaul]

There seems to be a problem with me putting a particular PCGen Board member on the sheet. He seems to be getting harassed now by the various PCGen powers that be because they now see him as a traitor now too.

Hunh? Harassed? Why do you say that?

 

[kingpaul]

I believe that it is the only way to do things to make the files available for the PCGen users (for free)

Are you saying that PCGen charges for the files? They are given away for free.

 

[gariig]

I do see a conflict of interests. Kingpaul, you are knee deep in the policitics of CMP/PCGen so you know better. Take three steps away and then look down at it.. CMP and PCGen do the laymen(most people) looks to be one of the same entity. I try to remember they aren't...but I still see CMP=PCGen probably like most people do.

Gariig