• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

What's up with PCGen???

kingpaul said:
Umm...no. Here's the BoD breakdown. I'll include a mix of real names and handles, as I'm on the road and don't have all my notes in front of me.

Bryan "Merton Monk" McRoberts
*PCGen Benevloent Dictator
*CMP co-founder

Robert "Mynex" Reed
*PCGen Special Projects SB
*CMP co-founder

When people think of CMP, I'll bet those are the two people that come to mind.

kingpaul said:
And what does coding expertise have to do with being able to fork the code? PCGen is an LGPL project. Anyone can fork the code if they so desire.

Exactly my point. They can fork the code. CMP cuts off all ties with PCGen and they go their own way completely. CMP changes the software however they want so that it meets their needs. PCGen changes the software however they want to meet their own needs. If one team codes something cool, then the other can take it and incorporate it in their own since the source code will remain available.

That would absolutely convince me they were seperate.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zub said:
When people think of CMP, I'll bet those are the two people that come to mind.

Exactly my point. They can fork the code. CMP cuts off all ties with PCGen and they go their own way completely. CMP changes the software however they want so that it meets their needs. PCGen changes the software however they want to meet their own needs. If one team codes something cool, then the other can take it and incorporate it in their own since the source code will remain available.

That would absolutely convince me they were seperate.

Do you realize how much damage that would do to pcgen?

A) this means that CMP datasets will eventually not work in pcgen as the code forks over time. Not so much of an issue for CMP since they have their own pcgen fork that they can jsut give away, but a huge issue for pcgen people, because they lose any and all access to WotC works that wizards refuses to allow distribution for free....Say Bye Bye to all the splat books. You may not see this as a problem, but alot of users want acces to data from publishers who do not care to give anything away, even if it helps them. In the end, most users just want to make a character, not a statement.

B) A ton of the expertise for the code of pcgen lies in the heads of Byran and Jason - so we lose 2 of our best developers.

C)PCGen stops receiving patches from CMP people that add FUNCTIONALITY.

What good does it accomplish? Nothing. The BoD has more then enough votes to overrule any CMP power grabs.

PCGen is open source - CMP can do nothing to change that. Tons of successful open source projects have members of their board that are tied directly to businesses that depend on the output. Apache is the best example of all. IBM has multiple people on the apache equivelent of the BoD. And apache now runs over 60% of the sites on the web...it is one of the best open source success stories.

Business involvement does not harm open source, because the license is explicitly designed to even the playing field, and force companies that participate to play fairly.

This is not freeware where the users have no rights, the LGPL grants a ton of rights, and there is no harm to the community if one of the things exercising those rights is a business.

Soulcatcher
 
Last edited:

d20books said:
Please post where I've attacked any member of the BoD. The only person I have a personal problem with is Mynex because he continues to harass me with quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo and hollow legal threats.

No, you have attacked mynex, but you have also insulted every member of the board.

from the pcgen Y! forum:

"PCGen
BoD and CMP are one in the same in the eyes of many of us"

Your impelcation here is clear, and you attack every member of the board in this statement. This statement says in not so many words that none of us A) earned our positions, but were given them because we were some how CMP friendly, and B) none of us have any integrity, because we are somehow CMP stooges and will do what is good for CMP over what is good for PCGen.

Your refusal to deliniate between the different parties in the BoD is insulting, intentionally derrogatory and hurtful.

Very few things make me angry, someone intentionally questioning my integrity with nothing to back it up is one of them.

d20books said:
Uhm, the Doc Silverback had come forward to build the Third-Party guidelines. I agreed to sit down with him but there would be a conflict of interest if I were the ONLY one to do such considering I'm wanting to do a non-profit Third Party. Bryan has refused to acknowledge the attempt and refuses to even acknowledge that CMP is a Third Party organization. If you need to check it out, the subject line at PCGen is "Jeff Pawlowski", my name.

You have asked certain qustions over and over, and many of us have responded - you have ignored our answers and suggestions of solutions and continued to pound on your pulpit.

d20books said:
The problem here is that if the PCGen forum has decided this is off-topic, how is it appropriate to now move the arguments to EN World? I'm sure that most everyone else has already stopped reading this forum. You may want to harp on it, but I'm busy trying to run a business and create a non-profit. It actually doesn't really concern you until the non-profit is incorporated and ready to operate. I'll get back to you then.

You started posting here...insinuating that the BoD is trying to undermine your character, and lying about our actions:

d20books said:
The only thing I'll comment on is that I've been accused of being a malcontent stirring up trouble where there is no trouble about the conflict of interest between CMP and PCGen. I don't know any of these people here on this forum and they have the same feelings as I do. I'm not alone. PCGen and CMP denying that there is an issue and refusing to eleviate the problem simply reinforces this view of the conflict of interest.

Since it's clear the only thing that will make you happy is pcgen creating a wall that states CMP is not allowed to do anything related to pcgen, it's kind of hard to solve your problems.

Solutions require people to meet in the middle, not run to the fringe, and refuse to move.
 
Last edited:

soulcatcher said:
Do you realize how much damage that would do to pcgen?

Yes I did realize how much damage that would do to PCGen. I only said it would convince me, not that it was necessary.

BTW, I know it sounds like I'm coming down on just one side, but there's plenty of blame to spread around.

From what I could gather, it seemed like the list monkey group was a closed off place where they continued to work on files they didn't have permission too. Was this some sort of private club where they could dick around "perfecting" list files while all the time they were still using them privately? That hardly seems fair to me. I can't tell you how many times I've asked for help on how to implement features and was shut down because the feature came came from a book that PCGen didn't support. And to find out from reading the BoD minutes, that they had these list files available for themselves the whole time for their personal use, is kind of aggravating.
 

d20books said:
The only person I have a personal problem with is Mynex because he continues to harass me with quasi-legal mumbo-jumbo and hollow legal threats.

This is a flat out lie. I sent you one private email and CC'd the Board of PCGen on it letting you know what boundries you crossed and what I would pursue if you continued to cross those boundries. Until this moment, this place, this time, I have not sent you any other emails, I have not posted in any way in relation to you about anything.

You responded with an attack on my character, threats against me and CMP (legal threats, not physical to be clear to others), and threats to report me to my ISP for harassment. I have not made your email response public, but you did CC the Board of PCGen in it, so there are others that can attest to this if asked.

You have made several posts on the LMC site with regards to me, with regards to how you'd respond to any legal issues. If anyone cared to see this, they can read the posts on the Main PCGen Y! group that were provided by Secret_Reporter of your words concerning me.

I will not reply to anything further on this particular topic, private or public.

My silence up to now or after this does not indicate acceptance of your smearing my character or your harassment, please cease such actions.
 

Hi, all.

If the people in this thread wish to keep discussing this calmly, ENWorld as you know has some rules of its own.

1) No personal attacks.

2) No provocation of other posters.

I appreciate everyone who's weighed in on the subject, but the name-calling and personal flames need to cease.
 

With that said, I've been finding this interesting, not realizing the recent tempest over at the PCGen forums.

One question:

In Zub's idea of code-base forking, Soulcatcher stated that it would shut the existing users of PCGen out of the loop of WotC updates. How so? Any functionality enjoined in a CMP PCgen product could be incorporated into the community Open source project, could it not? Or am I misunderstaning something here? Even if CMP incorporated changes to a CMP PCGen to enhance proprietary nature, those changes could be incorporated into the other project - or am I misunderstanding the LPGL license?

I understand Soulcatcher's point about losing Bryan, because he's an excellent programmer from what I've seen, and a pretty strong force of direction for the PCGen project. but the point about losing the functionality I don't necessarily comprehend in context of the open source project.
 

Henry said:
In Zub's idea of code-base forking, Soulcatcher stated that it would shut the existing users of PCGen out of the loop of WotC updates. How so? Any functionality enjoined in a CMP PCgen product could be incorporated into the community Open source project, could it not? Or am I misunderstaning something here? Even if CMP incorporated changes to a CMP PCGen to enhance proprietary nature, those changes could be incorporated into the other project - or am I misunderstanding the LPGL license?

Actually, this is true - but from a functional point of view, it's very hard to maintain compatibility across 2 forks - it also means you see different bugs in each place. It might not make it impossible to keep it compatible, just incredibly difficult - creating more work to maintain compatibility which leaves less developer time to make new features.

Henry said:
I understand Soulcatcher's point about losing Bryan, because he's an excellent programmer from what I've seen, and a pretty strong force of direction for the PCGen project. but the point about losing the functionality I don't necessarily comprehend in context of the open source project.

your POV is accurate - it likely would mean a slowdown in new features, as well as pcgen playing catchup to keep compatibility with cmp data sets.

Soulcatcher
 
Last edited:

Zub said:
From what I could gather, it seemed like the list monkey group was a closed off place where they continued to work on files they didn't have permission too. Was this some sort of private club where they could dick around "perfecting" list files while all the time they were still using them privately? That hardly seems fair to me. I can't tell you how many times I've asked for help on how to implement features and was shut down because the feature came came from a book that PCGen didn't support. And to find out from reading the BoD minutes, that they had these list files available for themselves the whole time for their personal use, is kind of aggravating.

Yes, it was a closed group. The reason it was a closed group was because Tir was trying to address the concerns of some of the LST Monkeys about their work being used before they were completed. This had much to do with OGL and making sure that there were no violations of non-OGC before they went out. This is a concern for publishers too, because you could accidentally release something that is NOT OGC out into the wild and accidentally call it OGC, inadvertently allowing many others to wrongfully use material in a manner they thought was legal. The publisher then lose out because they have to defend their material.

The other concerns, rightfully or not, were the feelings of distrust many of the LST Monkeys have toward CMP. There was a period of time that that list completely shut down with no posts when people discovered that Bryan was back on the list.

Believe me, most of the partial work being housed there were full of holes and problems as works in progress. A backlog of complete files, however, did occur where there were not enough people to QA the work and not enough OGL Monkeys to review the work. I have the feeling that many in the PCGen community forgot about the volunteerism necessary to keep the various sections moving. It is why I stepped in when I did to assist the LST Monkeys. Heck, even I want to have cool source material added to PCGen, but I wanted to contribute instead of waiting.

It was the feeling of Tir that we should not release stuff into the wild without being complete and without being completely combed through for OGL compliance and to make sure that only OGC declared content was in the files. His overriding concern was to avoid any legal troubles or violate any trust publishers had with PCGen that would inhibit them from cooperating with PCGen in the future.

I'm of the idea that you can put out files, as long as they pass the OGL Monkeys. Sure, the files will not be complete and there may be a bunch of bugs, but that's the burden you bare with the "release early, release often" mentality. Besides, they're free files so you get what you pay for ;-)

While there are many concerns about conflict of interests and no guidelines for third-party organizations, the big blow up has to do with the comments made in the BoD log where the BoD wanted to take LST files from someone that had expressed that they didn't want their material used in such a manner and had not submitted it to PCGen. Then there was the attempt (not known if it was actually attempted or if just mentioned in the log) that the BoD go in and grab the LST files in progress at the closed group. Again, such files were not yet handed over to PCGen. On the other side, the PCGen BoD felt that the group was inherently owned by PCGen and thus, the files were already submitted. There is a load of legalities involved with OGL, LGPL, copyright, and other such things. That's another argument.
 

smetzger said:
The conflict of interest that I see is the overlap in leadership. Its analogous to having Key players in Microsoft on the leadership for Open Office.

More like having key players in Sun on the leadership for Open Office. Or key players in Netscape on the leadership for Mozilla. Both of which are obviously unthinkably evil as well as unthinkably impossible.

Oh, wait. Both those are true. Ah well. There went my conspiracy theory. (Or was it yours? ;-)

/Jonas, who is cheap enough that he uses Open Office rather than Star Office and sane enough that he uses Mozilla rather than Netscape. :)
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top