# Clearing the air about PCGen Data Files



## Twin Rose (Oct 19, 2003)

Some months ago, I posted on a thread regarding XML datasets for the popular character generator "PCGen".  To clear the air about something, what I posted was that an end-user could make an XSL Stylesheet to transform one set of XML to another and use the files interchangibly.

Recently, this was shown to me, and my email box has been getting complaints:

"6.) A way of protecting PCGEN LMC created datasets (our section 15
statement should cover this).
<Paul> YES, but NOT to protect against CMP. Technically right now
ANYONE could swipe the datasets for their pay product (can we say Twin
Rose)"

First of all, let's take a look at the "morale issues" behind this.  XML is about free exchange, and about end-users being able to do what they need to do with their data.  This includes transforming the format one database program needs with another - and this goes both ways.  Businesses who need various forms of customer databases use XSL transformers to ensure that they don't have to do the work twice.  And they share these transformers with others using the same 2 (or more) programs.  That is the POINT behind XML.

Secondly, there is no 'stealing' non-orriginal material.  This is the open gaming license that we're talking about.  The only way I could -stop- end users from making their own transformers is to encrypt my data.  PCGen could do the same - they could write encrypters into PCGen.  Of course, since PCGen is an open source project, that would be more or less impossible - someone could just find the encryption in the source.

Third is that people creating these files are doing so to help others.  Campaign Suite has literally thousands of customers, and many more in people who have downloaded the free trial and continue to use it.  I don't see why someone who spent so much time designing a "data-set" would get upset if someone created a transformer to use that data with 2 programs - in the end, this work that someone volunteered to do is getting enjoyed by that many more people.  To say, "You, stop that!  Make your own!" I believe goes against everything XML, PCGen, and myself stand for - making peoples games easier.  Punishing people for choosing to purchase a campaign management program, I believe, is inappropriate.

Fourth is that this is creating a strain between myself, and people I consider - if not friends, at least good aquaintences and professional colleagues.  Both the BoD at PCGen and myself worked hard to create cordial relationships.  And of course, buying everyone who works for PCGen a round of drinks at GenCon was fun, not to mention getting arrested by Klingons together.  Fact is, we've talked -together- about cross compatibility, and we believed it was in the best interest for everyones users to create a ROBUST and compatible system that everyone could use.  We're in this to make games better, after all, and that should be making them better for -everyone-, and in the end, we all have the same goals.  I would hate to think that this may never happen, now.

Last has nothing to do with this, but it the perception I'm getting through hate-mail that I receive.  This is that people feel I'm somehow -evil- for creating a professional, for sale product.  The amount of time I devote to the CS (and now, Campaign Suite Extended) project is anywhere from 40-80 hours a week, and usually somewhere in the middle.  My users would be more upset if I worked a full time job, and worked on CS as a hobby.  THey enjoy around the clock tech support, and my working hard to ensure bugs don't remain.  Also, it is next to impossible to get a 'free' product into distribution, and to be available at local gaming stores around the world.  Some people, hard as it is to believe, don't have internet access.  I don't believe they should be denied character generation software or other tools just because they don't.  But a production run of CDs, shipping, etc is not free.

Thank you for your time, and I'll happily answer any questions posted to this thread.


----------



## smetzger (Oct 20, 2003)

I support your efforts to use PCGen list files.


----------



## DMFTodd (Oct 20, 2003)

I support your efforts to use PCGen list files.

If they're any good, I plan on using them as well in my product.


----------



## Zub (Oct 20, 2003)

I support your efforts to use not only PCGen list files, but also CMP list files, as long as those list files are legally obtained.


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 20, 2003)

Well, as stated, I won't be using any PCGen files.  Was more or less the point of the post.  My data format is purely XML, and anyone familiar with XML can write a stylesheet pretty easily to make data from one format, to the other.  What the end user does with files he has obtained, legally, should be outside the scope of what we - as software designers - try to police.  This of course doesn't mean they can share their converted files, if there are restrictions on distribution of the content contained.


----------



## andargor (Oct 20, 2003)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> Well, as stated, I won't be using any PCGen files.  Was more or less the point of the post.  My data format is purely XML, and anyone familiar with XML can write a stylesheet pretty easily to make data from one format, to the other.  What the end user does with files he has obtained, legally, should be outside the scope of what we - as software designers - try to police.  This of course doesn't mean they can share their converted files, if there are restrictions on distribution of the content contained.




Are your data files publicly available? I looked on your site, but could not find them.

Andargor


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 20, 2003)

andargor said:
			
		

> Are your data files publicly available? I looked on your site, but could not find them.
> 
> Andargor




Some are included, some are listed as expansions, both for free and for sale, depending on the publishers wants.


----------



## andargor (Oct 20, 2003)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> Some are included, some are listed as expansions, both for free and for sale, depending on the publishers wants.




I'm specificly looking for the SRD 3.5 in XML format. As you can see in my sig, I've already done spells and monsters.

I'm doing some experiments in using XML data sets in a character creation engine (multi-RPG, portable to MS, Linux and Mac, which will be LGPL), and it would save me some typing.

Actually, having data sets would help me in my experiment, which consists in abstracting the data format from the character creation engine (hence increasing the ease of data file production and allowing them to survive engine version updates).

Where can I get them?

Andargor


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 20, 2003)

andargor said:
			
		

> I'm specificly looking for the SRD 3.5 in XML format. As you can see in my sig, I've already done spells and monsters.
> 
> I'm doing some experiments in using XML data sets in a character creation engine (multi-RPG, portable to MS, Linux and Mac, which will be LGPL), and it would save me some typing.
> 
> Actually, having data sets would help me in my experiment, which consists in abstracting the data format from the character creation engine (hence increasing the ease of data file production and allowing them to survive engine version updates).




That would be included in the installation of the latest CSX beta.


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 20, 2003)

*GMGen perspective on the lst file dispute*

ok, here is the deal - and this is my personal opinion as the maintainer of GMGen.  It does not represent the rest of the PCGen BoD, or the pcgen project.

What Twin Rose wants to do (as far as I can tell) is take the output of pcgen (which is the user's data, not ours), and allow people to import their already created characters in to Twin Rose.  This is a good thing, as is it is respectful of PCGen, the community, and creates interoperability.

That being said, what some projects want to do is abhorrent to an open project.  They want to take the hard work of individuals who desired to make something free and open - and make money off of it, without contributing to the people who DID the work.  Sure, it's derivative.  But there are still countless hours of effort put in to coding the lst files, and testing them.  The only thing the people who do this ask for in return is effort to make open role playing projects better.  

So, I have also heard that there has been complaints that GMGen uses the data sets of PCGen.  If I do it, why can't others do it.  The simple answer is that I am not a vulture, I do not try to make money on other people's work.  Never mind that GMGen is an official PCGen project, that is not the necessary hurdle to cross. GMGen is an open source application, made available to the world for free, with complete source code access.  I do not steal the data sets these people contibute, I enhance them with furthur open code.  Code I might add that any other open project can use.  I am confident that any project that used the GPL, LGPL or even the Berkeley license would recieve the blessings as I have of the user base and the BoD (remember, not speaking FOR the rest of the BoD, opining on what they would do).

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD


----------



## andargor (Oct 20, 2003)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> That would be included in the installation of the latest CSX beta.





Hey, thanks! Got it. Interesting format, it will make for fun tests. 

If anyone else has XML files for the SRD 3.5, I'm interested in seeing them, if possible.

Andargor


----------



## Luke (Oct 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> They want to take the hard work of individuals who desired to make something free and open - and make money off of it, without contributing to the people who DID the work.




That certainly wouldn't apply to using any CMP datasets in another program.

CMP (I think it was Mynex) stated on their web-site that people are not paying twice for their RPG material (once for the books, and again for a CMP dataset) - which is a very common complaint about the datasets being charged for.

CMP have stated that the charge for the datasets is to pay for the efforts of people to enter the data, and do the testing etc.
That being the case, there should be *no problem* with being able to use the datasets in other programs (such as RolePlayingMaster and CS).
If you pay for the data, it certainly makes sense to be able to use it as best fits your needs. The efforts of the people who did the work is actually further rewarded by extra sales to RPG customers that use other programs.

*However* there is a background to the whole story that may make the issue less clear.
CMP have been licensed by Wizards to charge for the datasets. It *may* be that Wizards have stipulated that the licensed data was only to be usable in PCGen and ETools. If that is the case, then CMP may have a duty to try and enforce that.
Certainly CMP helped rescue a virtually dead ETools (big problems, with no budget to fix them). For that, Wizards gave a few PCGen founders the right to make money off datasets for PCGEN and ETools.

So, unless you actually get to see the agreement between CMP and Wizards, you don't really get to find out whether CMP have little choice, or whether they're trying to force people to use Etools or PCGEN.

I haven't personally imported anything from PCGEN for use in RolePlayingMaster, and the RolePlayingMaster community that has created many datasets hasn't either (far as I'm aware). Nevertheless, I wouldn't agree with any claims that its unfair to use datasets that are made freely available (like PCGEN) in other programs.
Surely the point of creating a freely available dataset under open source is to benefit the wider RPG community? Why would somebody get upset because you didn't use the same program as them?
If members of the RPG community find that they get better use out of a different program, or that ETools/PCGEN are just unsuitable - then wouldn't we all want them to get the best possible outcome for enjoying their roleplaying?

I guess I could have a problem if a different program used other programs datasets, and then made a surcharge on it for themselves.
My personal philosophy with RolePlayingMaster is that people only pay when (if) they register the basic program. From that point on everything is provided for  free. Registration money allows me to pay for on-going development and new features in the program (like advanced wordprocessing, tree interfaces and powerful grid components). From what I can see, people are quite happy to pay once for a small up-front shareware registration, and then continually reap the benefits of a constantly improving program.

If other people/publishers want to create RolePlayingmaster datasets, adventures, or other resource material; and then charge for it - good luck to them!

Regards,
Luke


----------



## Veander (Oct 21, 2003)

Someone made a transformer for the PCGen XML files to work in Campaign Suite? :? Complete news to me.  I dind't think such a thing was even remotely possible despite formats.  The programs work differently and I can't imagine they would talk to the same file (aside from maybe statblock text) and work with them.  

If that's the case, though and someone created a way to import PCGen files into CS, then how does that make CS a vulture-like company?  Even if your opinion is that pay-for software companies are vultures, then how can you have a problem with any of the DnD programs out there?  They aren't expensive.  I think they are all around $30, which is simply cheap.  You can input every DnD book into CS.


Sincerely,

V


----------



## andargor (Oct 21, 2003)

Veander said:
			
		

> Someone made a transformer for the PCGen XML files to work in Campaign Suite?




I've looked at the Twin Rose XML data, and it doesn't look like it came from PCGen data...

On another note, it's an intriguing format (seems suited to XPath, with heavy use of attributes), but I'll be looking to transform it into something less engine-centric (there are "TypeNum" codes and such...).

Too bad the d20XML people couldn't settle on a standard...

Andargor


----------



## dvvega (Oct 21, 2003)

The most obvious reason why d20XML couldn't come to an agreement is that there are two schools of thought about XML files for d20.

1) Store final data only
Store your character as it will appear on the printed sheet. Nothing more. Don't take into account the modifiers, or statistics that make up that character.

2) Store the data methods
Store the character in a way that allows you to take that file and generate that character with ANY program that understands the XML structure defined.

Both methods have their PROs and CONs. 

(1) wins if all programs will ever do is to display your character on-screen
PRO: simple transferrable character information
CON: who really wants just a character display program?

(2) wins if you want the programs to take your character and manipulate its stats/abilities accurately.
PRO: anyone can pick up the file and mimic d20 rules enough to handle that specific character.
CON: the format MUST be clever enough to explain the d20 rules involved in the calculations so that you don't have to program a lot of logic except to read the XML file and understand it.

What Twin Rose and PCGen are discussing (if my understanding is correct) is (1). Data that is transferrable between their respective programs. No one will be able to pick up a character file from Twin Rose and understand the d20 ruleset behind that character.


----------



## DarkSir (Oct 21, 2003)

dvvega said:
			
		

> No one will be able to pick up a character file from Twin Rose and understand the d20 ruleset behind that character.




True, but to those of us that have had some time to work with the character files, they are extremely flexible, when it comes to making character sheets and usable applications from them.


----------



## dvvega (Oct 21, 2003)

DarkSir said:
			
		

> True, but to those of us that have had some time to work with the character files, they are extremely flexible, when it comes to making character sheets and usable applications from them.




But that is exactly what I was saying ... you will have to do program logic behind it all. What happens if the character data says Strength 18 but this strength is actually from a variety of sources: base 15, +1 level bonus, +2 gauntlets of ogre power.

If the XML file generated from any program doesn't list this explicity modifier progression, any program reading that character file will have to do extrapolation on the character and essentially guess where the adjustments came from.

Yes it would be easy to guess the +2 from the gauntlets, but the +1 level bonus wouldn't be easy. What if the base was 16 in reality and another ability had received the bonus.

And this is part of the reason why (as far as I can tell) that the d20XML community hasn't agreed to a standard.


----------



## smetzger (Oct 21, 2003)

Luke said:
			
		

> CMP have stated that the charge for the datasets is to pay for the efforts of people to enter the data, and do the testing etc.
> That being the case, there should be *no problem* with being able to use the datasets in other programs (such as RolePlayingMaster and CS).
> If you pay for the data, it certainly makes sense to be able to use it as best fits your needs. The efforts of the people who did the work is actually further rewarded by extra sales to RPG customers that use other programs.
> 
> ...




Mynex has stated on the CMP boards:
" And to make it perfectly clear, this is to software makers... the end users can most certainly do whatever they like (legally) with the data they want to... but if software makers start adding abilities and statements of 'IMPORTS E-TOOLS AND PCGEN DATA FILES!!!" then there will be issues."

My interpretation of this is that one could write a program that imports these files.  But one would need permission from WOTC to use the ETools name and permission from Bryan to use the PCGen name.


----------



## DMFTodd (Oct 21, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> Mynex has stated on the CMP boards:
> " And to make it perfectly clear, this is to software makers... the end users can most certainly do whatever they like (legally) with the data they want to... but if software makers start adding abilities and statements of 'IMPORTS E-TOOLS AND PCGEN DATA FILES!!!" then there will be issues."



I'm not a lawyer. Anyone care to explain how that is possible? OpenOffice from Sun freely mentions that they can open Microsoft Word documents. Microsoft gave them permission to do that? I think not. Lots and lots of software products mention that they can read formats of other programs. Seems like a pretty well established position.

It's amusing that the folks who started PCGen have now become such champions of what is right and wrong.


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 21, 2003)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> I'm not a lawyer. Anyone care to explain how that is possible? OpenOffice from Sun freely mentions that they can open Microsoft Word documents. Microsoft gave them permission to do that? I think not. Lots and lots of software products mention that they can read formats of other programs. Seems like a pretty well established position.




It's the OGL.  Since the data sets are coverd by the OGL, the OGL gives pcgen, and Wizards of the Coast certain rights.  One of those rights is the ability to deny another company the ability to claim combatablilty with your product (as I understand it).

Also, in general, (once again, my opinion, not the BoD) no one seems to have a problem with other software reading in our final product - character sheets.  That's USER data.  Just like reading an MS Word Document in OpenOffice - USER data.  We don't own that data, and we never claimed to.

What bothers people is when another program picks up our source code (cause the lst files are essentially a mini-programming language) and then tries to put it in their program, and then attempts to generate income from that.

How would you feel Todd if someone got ahold of the DM's Familiar source, and used parts of it to make another app, and then charged people for it - you would be pretty pissed, I'm sure.  Simply put, it's the same thing for us, EXCEPT that we give our application away for free, and we give the source away under a license that allows people to give something back to the OPEN roleplaying community.



			
				DMFTodd said:
			
		

> It's amusing that the folks who started PCGen have now become such champions of what is right and wrong.




Hey - we are the ones, along with some other projects like OpenRPG that put our time, energy, and sometimes money into creating programs for the roleplaying community, and we are doing it without asking for compensation.  (I'm not CMP, and neither are the vast majority of people involved with pcgen - nor is ANYONE who is involved with GMGen.)  We do this for the love of it, and for the love of gaming.  If you have a problem with those motives, fine - but I think that gives us at least a little credibility.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD


----------



## smetzger (Oct 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> It's the OGL.  Since the data sets are coverd by the OGL, the OGL gives pcgen, and Wizards of the Coast certain rights.  One of those rights is the ability to deny another company the ability to claim combatablilty with your product (as I understand it).




I was just thinking of this.  This is a valid point for the OGL datasets and they are protected by such a claim.

However, I don't think the non-OGL datasets are protected by such a claim.  One could just claim the ability to load in WOTC splatbook datasets available from CMP.

Many companies make money off of Open Source projects, RedHat to name one.  If you don't want someone else to make money off of your source code then you shouldn't Open Source it.  You should instead just release the executable.

I don't think that PCGen has a legal leg to stand on in regards to this issue.  However, its obviously a point of contention with the PCGen crew, thus I am willing to work with you guys on this.

Thank You,
Scott Metzger


----------



## smetzger (Oct 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> Hey - we are the ones, along with some other projects like OpenRPG that put our time, energy, and sometimes money into creating programs for the roleplaying community, and we are doing it without asking for compensation.




The same could be said of the NetBook of Feats which I contributed to and which you included illegally in early PCGen releases.


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 21, 2003)

Luke said:
			
		

> That certainly wouldn't apply to using any CMP datasets in another program.




I don't represent CMP, I don't know anything about CMP other then what is officially stated, and frankly, I'm not particularly thrilled at how divisive the CMP issue has been with the community.  That being said, I am not going to comment on any of your CMP issues, because they have very little to do with pcgen - if you want to claim combatability with CMP datasets, talk to CMP.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> I haven't personally imported anything from PCGEN for use in RolePlayingMaster, and the RolePlayingMaster community that has created many datasets hasn't either (far as I'm aware). Nevertheless, I wouldn't agree with any claims that its unfair to use datasets that are made freely available (like PCGEN) in other programs.
> Surely the point of creating a freely available dataset under open source is to benefit the wider RPG community? Why would somebody get upset because you didn't use the same program as them?




My opinion is use it in any program you like, so long as that program is also open source.  If someone is making money, then they have no right to profiteer off of the donated labor of hundreds of people.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> If members of the RPG community find that they get better use out of a different program, or that ETools/PCGEN are just unsuitable - then wouldn't we all want them to get the best possible outcome for enjoying their roleplaying?




well, I would prefer they use PCGen, and not E-Tools.  E-Tools is not open either.  And yes, I do want the users to have the best outcome come game time.  But the users are not the only people in the mix.  The people who develop other closed applications that want to use pcgen data are not doing this for the users.  they want to do this for money.  It's called profit motive, and it's very powerful.  And this profit motive pushes some people to try and cheat by using the fruits of someone else's labor.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> I guess I could have a problem if a different program used other programs datasets, and then made a surcharge on it for themselves.




that's our issue.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> My personal philosophy with RolePlayingMaster is that people only pay when (if) they register the basic program. From that point on everything is provided for  free. Registration money allows me to pay for on-going development and new features in the program (like advanced wordprocessing, tree interfaces and powerful grid components). From what I can see, people are quite happy to pay once for a small up-front shareware registration, and then continually reap the benefits of a constantly improving program.




That's great.  Being open source allows us to get many hundreds of people to add features, and do other work for pcgen/gmgen such as Data, Documentation & Advocacy.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> If other people/publishers want to create RolePlayingmaster datasets, adventures, or other resource material; and then charge for it - good luck to them!




If a user makes a dataset on their own, they can do ANYTHING they want with it.  And this is also why CMP can function - they make their own datasets for pcgen and charge for them - they are not using someone else's free labor.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

Once again, these are my opinions, and not those of teh PCGen BoD


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 21, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> I was just thinking of this.  This is a valid point for the OGL datasets and they are protected by such a claim.
> 
> However, I don't think the non-OGL datasets are protected by such a claim.  One could just claim the ability to load in WOTC splatbook datasets available from CMP.




Yeah, you would have to take that up with CMP.  I have no opinion about this.



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> Many companies make money off of Open Source projects, RedHat to name one.  If you don't want someone else to make money off of your source code then you shouldn't Open Source it.  You should instead just release the executable.




RedHat doesn't leach, RedHat contributes thousands upon thousands of man hours to hundreds of open source projects.  All they code they publish is under the GPL (or similar licenses).  RedHat is an outstanding member of the Open Source community.  Selling linux while contributing heavily to it's development is diferent then taking the source, putting it in a closed application, making your own improvements, and selling the result. That is wrong.



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> I don't think that PCGen has a legal leg to stand on in regards to this issue.  However, its obviously a point of contention with the PCGen crew, thus I am willing to work with you guys on this.




Thanks 

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

yep, you guessed it, these comments are mine, and mine alone.

P.S. about the net book of feats thing?  Yes, PCGen did not play by the rules early on.  Whoops.  it was brought to our attention, and we fixed it, and did significant damage to our userbase to do so.  We are now very compliant not just to the letter of the law, but to the spirit.  PCGen will pull sources that they have eveyr right to use under the OGL if a publisher requests it, and in the case of the net book of feats, we have done so - at least one person did not want their material included in PCGen, and we complied with that wish - EVEN though we had every legal right to keep it under the OGL.


----------



## Veander (Oct 21, 2003)

Who is using PCGen lst files in their program as sold?

V


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 21, 2003)

Veander said:
			
		

> Who is using PCGen lst files in their program as sold?
> 
> V




No one is currently.  But there have been multiple packages that have announced that they intend to.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD


----------



## Veander (Oct 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> No one is currently.  But there have been multiple packages that have announced that they intend to.




Who is saying this about future products?  Could you post a link where it says this?

V


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 21, 2003)

Veander said:
			
		

> Who is saying this about future products?  Could you post a link where it says this?
> 
> V




Actually, I would prefer not to target this specifically at anyone, instead at the trend. But, if you read this thread from beginning to end, you will see at least one person who is in charge of a closed application that stated they intend to do so.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

yadda doesn't yadda represent yadda BoD yadda


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 21, 2003)

andargor said:
			
		

> Hey, thanks! Got it. Interesting format, it will make for fun tests.
> 
> If anyone else has XML files for the SRD 3.5, I'm interested in seeing them, if possible.
> 
> Andargor




Naturally, this format is still evolving as it gets run through the ringer by the end users making their own sheets/etc... But it's coming along.  It's naturally designed with CSX in mind, but I'm finding (see the character files, for example) that the users are finding information 'needed' for a good character sheet, making requests, etc, which I'm happy to help with.


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> Actually, I would prefer not to target this specifically at anyone, instead at the trend. But, if you read this thread from beginning to end, you will see at least one person who is in charge of a closed application that stated they intend to do so.




Well, one simply -can't- include anything that is open content in their binary without risking turning the whole binary into Open Conent - poisonous fruits, and all that.  And unless ALL you distribute is open source, no compiled binaries, you can't include open content in your source either.


----------



## Luke (Oct 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> My opinion is use it in any program you like, so long as that program is also open source.  If someone is making money, then they have no right to profiteer off of the donated labor of hundreds of people.




There seems to be some confusion here on what the actual rules are.

Before I get into it, so you don't misinterpret where I'm coming from, I'll re-iterate that I've never personally used PCgen info for RoleplayingMaster imports, and I don't think that the RPM community that has created many datsets has either. In any case, RPM's ability to do in-game stuff means that it needs more mechanics than is typically used for progams that are only character generators.

*Rules*
- Anybody can do anything they like with any information - for their own private use.

- If somebody shares information (like datsets), then it is legally considered as *publishing*, and you must conform to either the open gaming license or the d20 license (which, for clarity, we don't really need to distinguish between here).

- Anybody that creates original RPG content declares what portion of their work is *open* and what portion of their work is *closed*.

- *Closed* material is treated as being copyright to the original author, and can only re-published by others with special permission from the copyright owner (as where Wizards allow CMP to sell splatbook data).

- *Open* material can be used by anyone, in any way that they like, as long as they conform to the ogl/d20 license. It is a violation of the license to scramble published open information, in any way that prevents it from being human readable and hence re-usable (by other programs, for example). [Scott may well pipe in here concerning binaries, but Wizards are clear on their position].

*Consequences of Rules*

PCGen, or any other program, violates the license if they create datasets of open material, and then try to prevent others from using it in any way that conforms to the license.
It makes absolutley no difference whether or not a core RPG engine application is open source or not. It makes absolutely no difference how much effort any number of people put into creating the datasets. The fact is that those people got original material from other authors who have declared the content open and hence usable and republishable by all. It is illegal for a program to attempt to try and "close" the information, and hence retrict its use (where that use conforms to the licenses).

_There are actually 2 quite distinct and intertwined entities here_. One entitiy is the dataset itself, and the other is a program that can make use of the dataset. What I'm hearing here, is something along the lines of "We created the datasets, and we only want you to be able to use it if you also use the program that we made to go along with it".
Not legal. Not really in the spirit of open source and open gaming either. 

If you know your recent PCGen political history, you'll know that the program and the datasets are considered to be 2 quite different entities for legal/licensing purposes.
I don't think that you'll be happy to hear this, *but as far as rules and licensing are concerned, the PCGen program itself is almost irrelevant.* The only thing important about the PCGen program itself is that it must take care not to compile in open RPG content.

_As far as the rules are concerned, its all about the datasets_. If a thousand monkeys spend a thousand days typing in a thousand datasets of open content, then that can be freely used by *anybody* that obeys the licencing rules - including other commercial software. No crying about how much effort it took. You took other people's open content, and you must keep it open for others to use.

On the other hand, the rules for *closed* content are quite different. Closed content is essentially treated as copyright to the author, and you only get to use it (copy it or republish it) with special permission from the owner.
This is essentially what we have with CMP publishing the Wizards splat books.
Wizards own the copyright, and give CMP permission to sell/publish it.
As always, people who legally obtain the closed material can privately do whatever they like with it - including import it to other programs for their personal use.

In the case of CMP datasets for Wizards splat books, I would say that morally there is still no case of "many people have put in lots of hours, so you can't use it in other programs".
You see, CMP have already stated that they are *selling* the closed datasets, and that the money is used to *pay people* for their time and effort in producing them.

*Conclusion*
The whole issue of "we don't want other programs freely using the information we spent hundreds of hours producing" simply falls apart.

You can't have it both ways. Either give it away for free, or stop saying how unfair it is to make use of the efforts of others.

If a particular dataset is open, then its illegal to stop others from using it, according to the license.
If a particular datset is closed, then its being charged for, and the people doing the work are being compensated. In fact, the more programs that can use the datsets, the more money CMP makes from selling it. Why try and limit its usefulness, by restricting it to 1 or 2 programs?

As I said, according to the rules, the program and the data have to be considered separately.
What we seem to have here is a kind of a monopoly on certain data, and a monopolistic attitude of forcing people into using a particular program as well. This is anti-open source. What you need to remember is that iwhen other programs use the data, is still stays open and usable by others. Remember that the program and the data are 2 separate entities.

Its no secret that whilst many love PCGen and are devoted to it, many others find it slow, or difficult to work with. Its also no secret that other software programs are not only character generators, but also offer very significantly advanced features in the areas of adventure building, in-game play, advanced wordprocessing, campaign building, and other types of generators.

Do those with a monopoly on certain RPG information *really* want to force the rest of the RPG community to use a particular program with it? Do they *really* insist that the RPG community consider choosing bewteen their preferred program, and having that data available?

If so, perhaps the PCGen silverbacks could at least suggest to the wider PCGen community that people such as Chris do not get "hate mail". After all, he doesn't deserve it, and the PCGen community is ultimately about an open source effort to make certain *datasets* available to the whole RPG community anyway.

As an RPG community, we're better than "hate mail" 

Regards,


----------



## smetzger (Oct 21, 2003)

Luke said:
			
		

> [Scott may well pipe in here concerning binaries, but Wizards are clear on their position].




My ears were itching 

I'll just make a couple comments on this.
1) The license does not specify human readable.
2) I have two programs and a .dll which I have declared parts or whole as OGC.
3) These programs have been available for almost a year now.
4) I have been in dialog with WOTC about these programs and they have not asked me to change them.


----------



## Luke (Oct 21, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> My ears were itching
> 
> I'll just make a couple comments on this.
> 1) The license does not specify human readable.
> ...




I didn't think you'd be able to resist that one.

If I recall, Andrew (Wizards) did initially confirm that they require "human readable". I did see the mini apps you posted, and (with all due respect  ), I think that Wizards would stamp all over a program that they considered worth their effort to pursue.
PCGen certainly accepted this (as have all major apps such as RolePlayingMaster, CS and DMF).
I can tell you categorically that Wizards closely examined and monitored the forced evolution of PCGen into a license compliant program that did not compile any D20 RPG data or rules into the core engine program. This is exactly what making PCGen license-compliant was all about.


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 21, 2003)

Ok, this is  a whopper, I'll hit it piece by piece.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> There seems to be some confusion here on what the actual rules are.
> 
> Before I get into it, so you don't misinterpret where I'm coming from, I'll re-iterate that I've never personally used PCgen info for RoleplayingMaster imports, and I don't think that the RPM community that has created many datsets has either. In any case, RPM's ability to do in-game stuff means that it needs more mechanics than is typically used for progams that are only character generators.




Correct. GMGen is in the same position.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *Rules*
> - Anybody can do anything they like with any information - for their own private use.




True



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> - If somebody shares information (like datsets), then it is legally considered as *publishing*, and you must conform to either the open gaming license or the d20 license (which, for clarity, we don't really need to distinguish between here).




True, although the D20 licens is pretty unimportant to this conversation.  A person may also except small bits to be used ina 'fair use' manor via copyright law.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> - Anybody that creates original RPG content declares what portion of their work is *open* and what portion of their work is *closed*.




True



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> - *Closed* material is treated as being copyright to the original author, and can only re-published by others with special permission from the copyright owner (as where Wizards allow CMP to sell splatbook data).




True



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> - *Open* material can be used by anyone, in any way that they like, as long as they conform to the ogl/d20 license. It is a violation of the license to scramble published open information, in any way that prevents it from being human readable and hence re-usable (by other programs, for example). [Scott may well pipe in here concerning binaries, but Wizards are clear on their position].




true, although the last part is interpretable, and not technically in the license - that is wizards stated desire for interpretation.

So, with you so far.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *Consequences of Rules*
> 
> PCGen, or any other program, violates the license if they create datasets of open material, and then try to prevent others from using it in any way that conforms to the license.
> It makes absolutley no difference whether or not a core RPG engine application is open source or not. It makes absolutely no difference how much effort any number of people put into creating the datasets. The fact is that those people got original material from other authors who have declared the content open and hence usable and republishable by all. It is illegal for a program to attempt to try and "close" the information, and hence retrict its use (where that use conforms to the licenses).




This is correct.  However, we still ahve a right to an opinion, and we still have the right to not allow people to use the PCGen name in their materials.  This comes from the OGL.  PCGen is PI, and it is a trademark owned by Bryan McRoberts.  Without his permission, no project may use that name, and no project may state that they are compatible with it.

When we deal with publishers, we ASK them if we can use their sources, and we do or don't dependant upon their answer.  PCGen has not one shred of material that a publisher does not want to be there.  When publishers deal with each other, they have developed a culture of asking each other if they can use OGC.  None of this is necessary, but it's polite. We are asking for the same treatment.

We are not attempting to 'close' the information.  But we are trying to recieve the same treatment that developers give any other publisher.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> _There are actually 2 quite distinct and intertwined entities here_. One entitiy is the dataset itself, and the other is a program that can make use of the dataset. What I'm hearing here, is something along the lines of "We created the datasets, and we only want you to be able to use it if you also use the program that we made to go along with it".
> Not legal. Not really in the spirit of open source and open gaming either.




we are asking our neighbors to play nicly.  I imagine the community would be happy to let other open source programs use the data, and possibly (though less likely) freeware.  The problem that some people have is that they are giving thier woprk  away for free, and some programmers want to take that information and make a profit off of that.  It's not illegal, but it is Immoral and Rude.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> If you know your recent PCGen political history, you'll know that the program and the datasets are considered to be 2 quite different entities for legal/licensing purposes.
> I don't think that you'll be happy to hear this, *but as far as rules and licensing are concerned, the PCGen program itself is almost irrelevant.* The only thing important about the PCGen program itself is that it must take care not to compile in open RPG content.




that's fine.  yes.  and?



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> _As far as the rules are concerned, its all about the datasets_. If a thousand monkeys spend a thousand days typing in a thousand datasets of open content, then that can be freely used by *anybody* that obeys the licencing rules - including other commercial software. No crying about how much effort it took. You took other people's open content, and you must keep it open for others to use.




Yes.  but we are also playing by the societal rules.  Rules that are not imposed by law, but instead by convention.  If other programmers want to treat us like garbage, and abuse our good will, they can.  And they can do it legally.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> On the other hand, the rules for *closed* content are quite different. Closed content is essentially treated as copyright to the author, and you only get to use it (copy it or republish it) with special permission from the owner.
> This is essentially what we have with CMP publishing the Wizards splat books.
> Wizards own the copyright, and give CMP permission to sell/publish it.
> As always, people who legally obtain the closed material can privately do whatever they like with it - including import it to other programs for their personal use.




Yep



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> In the case of CMP datasets for Wizards splat books, I would say that morally there is still no case of "many people have put in lots of hours, so you can't use it in other programs".
> You see, CMP have already stated that they are *selling* the closed datasets, and that the money is used to *pay people* for their time and effort in producing them.




Yes, and?  I choose to make code and content available for the masses, and I don't ask for monetary compensation.  People who charge for their stuff have eery right to do so - but when they profiteer off of me, and use me to make a profit, that makes me justifyably angry.  I make free content for *users*, not to fatten someone elses wallet.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *Conclusion*
> The whole issue of "we don't want other programs freely using the information we spent hundreds of hours producing" simply falls apart.






			
				Luke said:
			
		

> You can't have it both ways. Either give it away for free, or stop saying how unfair it is to make use of the efforts of others.




If other software producers won't give us the same courtesy they give to publishers, I have every right to be angry.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> If a particular dataset is open, then its illegal to stop others from using it, according to the license.
> If a particular datset is closed, then its being charged for, and the people doing the work are being compensated. In fact, the more programs that can use the datsets, the more money CMP makes from selling it. Why try and limit its usefulness, by restricting it to 1 or 2 programs?




Yep.  I personally want to limit it via social (not legal) means because I believe open software is better for the community then closed software.  I don't want through my actions and efforts to encourage people to purchase a closed, proprietary application.  This is *my* belief. Feel free to disagree.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> As I said, according to the rules, the program and the data have to be considered separately.
> What we seem to have here is a kind of a monopoly on certain data, and a monopolistic attitude of forcing people into using a particular program as well. This is anti-open source. What you need to remember is that iwhen other programs use the data, is still stays open and usable by others. Remember that the program and the data are 2 separate entities.




Yes, they are.  And I would welcome any other open source applications to use the data.  I am sure that any person writing one that wanted to use the data would recieve not only teh data, but our appreciation for using it in new and interesting ways.  Competetion is good.  A marketplace of ideas is good.  And it is not anti open source to promote the usage of what I see as a superior development model over closed applications.  We have few legal weapons, but we CAN prevent other developers from using our name - by the rules, we CAN organize people, we CAN give our opinions.

And we by no means have a monopoly on the data.  if people want to do the same thing we have, they can always contact the publishers, and get permission to do the same thign for their closed application.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> Its no secret that whilst many love PCGen and are devoted to it, many others find it slow, or difficult to work with. Its also no secret that other software programs are not only character generators, but also offer very significantly advanced features in the areas of adventure building, in-game play, advanced wordprocessing, campaign building, and other types of generators.




Yeah, that's where I come in.  GMGen is going head to head in this arena, and personally (though I'm biased) I think it's the best combat tracker out there.  PCGen dropped eh D20 license, and GMGen will soon (hopefully) be included as a part of PCGen. We will compete in this area, and both you and I and others will do our best to win.  I intend to see PCGen become or stay the best of breed Character generator, with GMGen as a best of breed GM's toolkit.  PCGen has it's flaws, but it is by users, for users, and that mean a lot.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> Do those with a monopoly on certain RPG information *really* want to force the rest of the RPG community to use a particular program with it? Do they *really* insist that the RPG community consider choosing bewteen their preferred program, and having that data available?




It's not a question of that.  First, remember that this is me, not the pcgen bod talking.  What I want is to see many many good, and open tools.  I ahve already offered to help at least one developer make thier program Open Source, and guide them through usage of the data.  I want to see many many programs using the pcgen data, I think that would be great.

But I don't want to see some person swoop in, with no care for the community, and take all that work to make money for themselves.  I may not be able to legally prevent them, but I sure can try to shame them out of it.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> If so, perhaps the PCGen silverbacks could at least suggest to the wider PCGen community that people such as Chris do not get "hate mail". After all, he doesn't deserve it, and the PCGen community is ultimately about an open source effort to make certain *datasets* available to the whole RPG community anyway.




I agree, chris does not deserve any hate mail.  Interoperability is a totally different beast.  Users can use their data the way they want to, and if someone writes a program that can read in the users data, and take it where they want to, that's fine and dandy.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> As an RPG community, we're better than "hate mail"
> 
> Regards,




I completly agree.  Hate mail is useless and damaging to dialog

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

And again....me, not the bod here.


----------



## smetzger (Oct 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> When we deal with publishers, we ASK them if we can use their sources, and we do or don't dependant upon their answer.  PCGen has not one shred of material that a publisher does not want to be there.  When publishers deal with each other, they have developed a culture of asking each other if they can use OGC.  None of this is necessary, but it's polite. We are asking for the same treatment.
> 
> We are not attempting to 'close' the information.  But we are trying to recieve the same treatment that developers give any other publisher.




I don't think thats true.  I have contributed a fair amount of material and put a fair amount of effort into contributing OGC for freely available products.  I have had my OGC routinely re-used in for profit products without anyone contacting me and asking for permission.

[Edit this out]Although you may ask the publishers, I don't believe you ask the copyright holders.  I have never received an email from PCGen asking to use any of my feats that I contributed to the NetBook of Feats.[/Edit this out]
I just checked and I couldn't find any NBoF Feats in the latest release build.  So it looks like I was incorrect about this point.

But then I don't mind.  My name is in Section 15 and thats all that matters to me.


----------



## Luke (Oct 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> But I don't want to see some person swoop in, with no care for the community, and take all that work to make money for themselves.  I may not be able to legally prevent them, but I sure can try to shame them out of it.



I appreciate that post, Soulcatcher. I feel a warmer tone there.
I also agree that proceeding along polite grounds is the way to go.

I don't, however, agree with the "go open source or we shame you" approach, though.
PCGen is a significant piece of work, but it certainly has its limitations, being based on a Java SDK, in terms of interface, amount of RAM required and other things.
I'm not sure how many different programs you've looked at with regard to combat tracking, but I can tell you that (using an example I know), there's a whole stack of quality, integrated features in RolePlayingMaster that just wouldn't work (speed, RAM etc) on the average PC - if it ran on a Java SDK. Just check out the new wordprocessing features in it to get an idea of what I mean.

Please, the point is not about "my app is better than yours". The point is about people having the flexibility to choose an app that gives them the features, power and quality that they feel they need.

Open source material should stand on its own quality. I personally don't believe in an open source effort monpolizing control of information to enforce the use a companion open source application.

As far as I understand it, no other commercial programs are built around "swooping on PCGen data". They're simply talking about an option for people to use additional data that they (typically) will purchase from CMP. 

I think that the real point has been missed (and side-stepped in your reply). The real *issue* is actually about other software being able to legally make Wizards splatbook data available to users of their software.
The effort and hours people have put in is then not an issue. The people who did the work on that data get *paid* for it, and those who end up using the data *pay* them for it. So where's the problem?

Personally, I wouldn't be interested in importing PCGen data to RolePlayingMaster. It would probably take me more effort to try and convert it, than to enter it in my own format from scratch. I have nice editors for entering game data. I would still come up short, since I need more than PCGen has in it to support my full in-game stuff.

That leaves me (and other programs) with an issue of how to make Wizards splat data easily available legally. Since Wizards have only talked to CMP, who are only doing ETools and PCGen, thats where other software needs to look.
I think you'll probably find that Chris' interest in PCGen is pretty much as a legal source of Wizards splat data in XML format.

On the point of swoopers making money: I recall all the major RPG shareware developers (myself included) stating a while ago that the effort we pour into our programs is about a passion for RPG, and that if it was about making money, we'd be better off doing something else with our time. Chris (TwinRose) was silent on that issue, and that's his business.

If you look at D20 publishers, there are those that produce open content, and those that produce closed content.
I don't see any effort from the open D20 publishers to shame or strenuously encourage commercial D20 publishers into going open source. I don't think things should be any different with software.

Ultimately, the RPG public should be left to decide what they like, and what they are prepared to pay for. If PCGen/GMGen meets their needs, is better than commercial stuff, and is free - well, everyone will be using it!

Finally, I can tell you that the principals of the greatest open source project - Linux, are **not** poor people - and can thank Linux for that. I can also tell you that Sun's great (open) Java initiative (upon which PCGen/GmGen is completely dependant) was also very much about making money. A few years ago, serious Java initiatives in business usually required the purchase of very expensive multi-processor sun boxes.Yes, Java helps sell Sun boxes.
With another great open source initiative, PCGen, the principals worked hard for a right from Wizards to incorporate the splat book data. Guess what? They're now running a commercial business selling those datasets, that came to them as an opportunity due to their positions as principals of an open source project!!!

On a much smaller scale, the components I use to develop RPM are *not* cheap. Things have to be paid for.
Not being tied to whatever the Java SDK has to offer costs me, but it also gives me much greater flexibility with the quality I have to offer the RPG community (assuming I'm happy to be Windows-only).

Good Luck,


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 21, 2003)

Luke said:
			
		

> I appreciate that post, Soulcatcher. I feel a warmer tone there.
> I also agree that proceeding along polite grounds is the way to go.
> 
> I don't, however, agree with the "go open source or we shame you" approach, though.




it's not a weapon I would choose to use lighly, but it's one of the only offensive tools an open source project has when people abuse it (and I'm not saying anyone has abused it yet).



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> PCGen is a significant piece of work, but it certainly has its limitations, being based on a Java SDK, in terms of interface, amount of RAM required and other things.
> I'm not sure how many different programs you've looked at with regard to combat tracking, but I can tell you that (using an example I know), there's a whole stack of quality, integrated features in RolePlayingMaster that just wouldn't work (speed, RAM etc) on the average PC - if it ran on a Java SDK. Just check out the new wordprocessing features in it to get an idea of what I mean.
> 
> Please, the point is not about "my app is better than yours". The point is about people having the flexibility to choose an app that gives them the features, power and quality that they feel they need.




I think that to some degree you are right, but with careful programming, and cleaning up of code, it's been proven in many benchmarks that java *can* be almost as fast as C.  Especially if I chose to move to SWT (a native windowing toolkit released by teh eclipse project).  That being said, it's not alwyas about features, it's also ease of use, and good choice of features.  And no worries, we are of course both biased - in the end, the 'market' will decide 



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> Open source material should stand on its own quality. I personally don't believe in an open source effort monpolizing control of information to enforce the use a companion open source application.
> 
> As far as I understand it, no other commercial programs are built around "swooping on PCGen data". They're simply talking about an option for people to use additional data that they (typically) will purchase from CMP.




See, then they should say so.  PCGen data is for OPEN use.  CMP data as far as I can tell you can use as you damn well please.  If the CMP data sets are the issue for the developers of these various packages, that's fine - I don't care one whit.  It's useing the PCGen name, potentially without permission, as well as usage of teh data sets taht have been contributed that get my panties in a bunch (so to speak).



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> I think that the real point has been missed (and side-stepped in your reply). The real *issue* is actually about other software being able to legally make Wizards splatbook data available to users of their software.
> The effort and hours people have put in is then not an issue. The people who did the work on that data get *paid* for it, and those who end up using the data *pay* them for it. So where's the problem?




There isn't one, at least not with me.  I have no connection to CMP.  I work with PCGen and GMGen.  I suspect the CMP people would welcome other pieces of software using their data, cause it's more sales for them.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> Personally, I wouldn't be interested in importing PCGen data to RolePlayingMaster. It would probably take me more effort to try and convert it, than to enter it in my own format from scratch. I have nice editors for entering game data. I would still come up short, since I need more than PCGen has in it to support my full in-game stuff.




Great.  This is not directed at you 



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> That leaves me (and other programs) with an issue of how to make Wizards splat data easily available legally. Since Wizards have only talked to CMP, who are only doing ETools and PCGen, thats where other software needs to look.
> I think you'll probably find that Chris' interest in PCGen is pretty much as a legal source of Wizards splat data in XML format.




Talk to CMP. All the data in PCGen is OGL.  granted, we do have some specific PI permissions.  Any other group can do the same, they don't have to use our data, no monopoly.  The CMP stuff is for sale by a company with contracts to enable it to do so.  and as I said, I'm sure they would be happy to let others code compatability with those data sets.  I seriously doubt anyone in the PCGen community will care.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> On the point of swoopers making money: I recall all the major RPG shareware developers (myself included) stating a while ago that the effort we pour into our programs is about a passion for RPG, and that if it was about making money, we'd be better off doing something else with our time. Chris (TwinRose) was silent on that issue, and that's his business.




Excellent.  That's the spirit I like to hear.  Doesn't mean that there might not be a project that intends to cheat, and make money off other people's toil.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> If you look at D20 publishers, there are those that produce open content, and those that produce closed content.
> I don't see any effort from the open D20 publishers to shame or strenuously encourage commercial D20 publishers into going open source. I don't think things should be any different with software.






			
				Luke said:
			
		

> Ultimately, the RPG public should be left to decide what they like, and what they are prepared to pay for. If PCGen/GMGen meets their needs, is better than commercial stuff, and is free - well, everyone will be using it!




That's my hope 



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> Finally, I can tell you that the principals of the greatest open source project - Linux, are **not** poor people - and can thank Linux for that. I can also tell you that Sun's great (open) Java initiative (upon which PCGen/GmGen is completely dependant) was also very much about making money. A few years ago, serious Java initiatives in business usually required the purchase of very expensive multi-processor sun boxes.Yes, Java helps sell Sun boxes.
> 
> With another great open source initiative, PCGen, the principals worked hard for a right from Wizards to incorporate the splat book data. Guess what? They're now running a commercial business selling those datasets, that came to them as an opportunity due to their positions as principals of an open source project!!!




It's not making money I object to.  It's taking from the community for personal gain, and not giving back.  The community gives, so should it recieve.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> On a much smaller scale, the components I use to develop RPM are *not* cheap. Things have to be paid for.
> Not being tied to whatever the Java SDK has to offer costs me, but it also gives me much greater flexibility with the quality I have to offer the RPG community (assuming I'm happy to be Windows-only).




Yeah, and it's a tough route.  Java has it's problems, but lack of functionality is not one of them 



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> Good Luck,




Good Luck to you too.

On another note, I would liek to sit down with you, Chris, Todd, and whoever runs DM Genie, and discuss interoperability.  there is no reason a person who likes my combat manager, but your campaign management tools shouldn't be able to use both, and have them talk to each other.

Think about it.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

same as before....not the bod, all me.


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 21, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> I don't think thats true.  I have contributed a fair amount of material and put a fair amount of effort into contributing OGC for freely available products.  I have had my OGC routinely re-used in for profit products without anyone contacting me and asking for permission.




Well, people do deal directly with the netbook people, and don't always go down to each copyright holder.  Not to mention, the netbook stuff explicitly has given permission for people to use it in other OGL products.  I could be wrong, but I even seem to recall a statement that one needn't bother to contact them to use it in an OGL document.  

Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I'm not, you kind of implicitly gave your permission for peopel to use it by submitting it to the netbook team.



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> [Edit this out]Although you may ask the publishers, I don't believe you ask the copyright holders.  I have never received an email from PCGen asking to use any of my feats that I contributed to the NetBook of Feats.[/Edit this out]
> I just checked and I couldn't find any NBoF Feats in the latest release build.  So it looks like I was incorrect about this point.
> 
> But then I don't mind.  My name is in Section 15 and thats all that matters to me.




I don't know if you are the guy, but SOMEONE from the netbook of feats requested that their stuff NEVER EVER be included in PCGen.  We respected that.  You can't ask more from us.  As far as I know (and no, this is not my area, so I don't really know), the source is not available to the public right now, because the data team is ensuring that it's clean, and has permission from everone.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD


----------



## Nine Hands (Oct 21, 2003)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> Some months ago, I posted on a thread regarding XML datasets for the popular character generator "PCGen".  To clear the air about something, what I posted was that an end-user could make an XSL Stylesheet to transform one set of XML to another and use the files interchangibly.
> 
> Recently, this was shown to me, and my email box has been getting complaints:
> 
> ...




I think that using the data is any product is really a good idea.  I have written a handful of sources in my time working on PCGen and I could care less what people do with them.  Basically its OGL, that is the way it works.  If there is a transform sheet ever made, I will be more than willing to use it in both PCGen and Campaign Suite.  I personally would love to see a movement for dataset creation, apart from the individual programs themselves.  The data monkies would create datasets to specification, release them under OGL and other programs could import them when and if they wanted to.  Of course, licensed data sets would have to be handled by some sort of contract (like CMP is doing, they seem to have things under control at this time).

Also remember that the quote was from one BoD member, not the entire BoD.  Actually I would be surprised if the BoD voted to lock down the data, it goes against EVERYTHING that this project stood for in the beginning AND would make problems for integrating stuff from GMGen (they would have to be let in on this secret encryption method).  In the end, encryption is pointless since the PCGen code is freely available.  I just don't see it happening anytime.  Now for CMP, they still have a similar problem.  To make the data usable by PCGen they have to at some point unencrypt the stuff.  Its a total PITA and IMHO not worth the time to implement it.

And again, thanks for the beer


----------



## Nine Hands (Oct 21, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> I don't think thats true.  I have contributed a fair amount of material and put a fair amount of effort into contributing OGC for freely available products.  I have had my OGC routinely re-used in for profit products without anyone contacting me and asking for permission.
> 
> [Edit this out]Although you may ask the publishers, I don't believe you ask the copyright holders.  I have never received an email from PCGen asking to use any of my feats that I contributed to the NetBook of Feats.[/Edit this out]
> I just checked and I couldn't find any NBoF Feats in the latest release build.  So it looks like I was incorrect about this point.
> ...




Isn't that the point of OGC?  Its open so they don't have to contact you specifically, they have to follow the license which requires certain copyright in section 15.  PCGen has tried to follow the wishes of publishers and pull material (even OGC material that we could legally and freely use) if the publisher does not want it.  A user has to contact a copyright holder for PI.  If the stuff was PI, then whoever wants to use it MUST contact you before using it.  

Lately, the team has been bending over backwards trying to satisfy publishers, almost to the point of annoying users because it takes forever to get the data sets into the program.

Sorry to hear that you had problems with the NBoF and I remember the talks on the list about it pretty clearly.


----------



## smetzger (Oct 22, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> Well, people do deal directly with the netbook people, and don't always go down to each copyright holder.  Not to mention, the netbook stuff explicitly has given permission for people to use it in other OGL products.  I could be wrong, but I even seem to recall a statement that one needn't bother to contact them to use it in an OGL document.
> 
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but if I'm not, you kind of implicitly gave your permission for peopel to use it by submitting it to the netbook team.
> 
> ...




A brief history recap on the NBoF...
PCGen asked to use NBoF material in PCGen.
NBoF board said yes.
PCGen interpreted that 'yes' as they don't need to follow OGL.
NBoF meant that yes as 'yes as long as you comply with OGL'.
I raised the stink about this.
NBoF issued some public statements saying you don't need permission just follow the OGL.  Which is a correct statement for any OGL product.

I definantly raised the stink about this and insisted that if PCGen was to use my material they needed to follow the OGL.


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 22, 2003)

So many posts I want to respond to, I'll have to skip quoting.

Luke: You're right.  Believe me, if I was "only out to make money" I'd go back to writing VB databases for Time Share Units.  That was some pretty healthy money, I can tell you, and what funds me through life in general 

Nine Hands: Don't sweat the beer, I was glad to "contribute" to the PCGen effort  Besides, the bartender charged me less than half what she should have for a round of 20 drinks! 

For a few people: In regards to using trademarks, I simply wouldn't.  I wouldn't say, "Use this to import Sword & Fist into CSX."  It would say, "Import/Export to/from Format A."  Whether format A says, "PCGen Lst File" or "LST file" can be determined by friendly discourse.  I certainly "won't make money" by using trademarks.  The sales come one way or another.  I doubt that anyone would pick up my DVD case, read on the back, "Works with LST files" and decide to make their purchase based on that fact.  People just don't work that way.  It's about saying to those people who HAVE made the purchase, "Look, we're working harder to make you happy ... and here's how."  And making people smile and have good will.  Unless I'm utterly mistaken, anyone making LST files is doing it -for that reason-.  IN the end, I'm NOT going to integrate any one specific LST file... That'd be against the point.


----------



## DMFTodd (Oct 22, 2003)

Let me make sure I understand soulcatcher: 

1) Company X releases a book that is OGL
2) The OGL content is coded into a LST file for some volunter
3) The LST file is used in PCGen and GMGen

Since PCGen and GMGen are free and open, this is fine. If the LST file is used in a for-pay product, then that author is a "cheat", "rude" and "immoral".


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 22, 2003)

DMFTodd said:
			
		

> Let me make sure I understand soulcatcher:
> 
> 1) Company X releases a book that is OGL
> 2) The OGL content is coded into a LST file for some volunter
> ...




well, if the author is using the lst file that is encoded by a volunteer to make money without contributing anything back, then well... yes.

The content is still free.  and the author can type their own up.

Look at it this way.  If I took a photocopy of a few pages from a book from company X, and then included those photocopied pages in my own book, and sold it - well, it would be clear that I am doing something that is wrong.

If I used that book as a reference, and typed some of the OGL data from the original book in mine, that would be fine.

Why is that?

Because the first example is a person taking more then is free.  They are taking the formatting, the border art, and are doing no useful work on their own.  They are giving nothing back.

Well, if a person takes a PCGen, volunteer created lst file, and just includes it in a product THEY are selling, it's the same thing.

People put work into the formatting, the comments, and so on.  No one will have an issue with you taking the OGL data out of them, and making your own deravitive data files - its the issue of 'photocopying' it, and selling it.

I have a problem with people treating volunteers like dirt when they would treat another publisher well - purely because what the volunteer does is made available for free.  The LST authors ARE publishers (look and Mongoose (I think)  All their stuff is deravitive, but peopel still treat them with respect as a publisher), they do a lot of hard work, and deserve to recieve some respect instead of scorn.

At least that's my opinion.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

These are my opinions, not those of the PCGen BoD


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 22, 2003)

There are of course ways around this.

If there was an agreed upon standard, and all peopel who used it contributed time and energy to the data file creation, IMHO that is a different story altogether.....

Contributing something while one is taking from the jar is really a different beast.

Just another 2 cents on top of the pile of change.

Devon


----------



## Veander (Oct 23, 2003)

I don't think anyone is saying they are going to INCLUDE lst files or any file not of their own in their respective programs.  I do think some have said they would like to USE these files, such as witha  converter or transformer.  Thing is, I can't imagine PCGen to CSX working.  I would like it to, but right now I am happy with just a statblock import in CS rather than worry about file formats.  I mean the amout of detail that would be required to let CS sense what "affects" and conditions of affects...  goodness I can't imagine it.  I could probably say the same thing any way around with any other program (I think Luke said this before anyway).

If anyone is saying they think they have the right to put PCGen files in their program and specifically without even asking them to do it, I am fully against such a thing.  Again I don't think anyone is saying that.  It's possible miscommunication is happening if that's what you think soulcatcher.

V


----------



## smetzger (Oct 23, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> People put work into the formatting, the comments, and so on.  No one will have an issue with you taking the OGL data out of them, and making your own deravitive data files - its the issue of 'photocopying' it, and selling it.
> 
> I have a problem with people treating volunteers like dirt when they would treat another publisher well - purely because what the volunteer does is made available for free.  The LST authors ARE publishers (look and Mongoose (I think)  All their stuff is deravitive, but peopel still treat them with respect as a publisher), they do a lot of hard work, and deserve to recieve some respect instead of scorn.




Well the OGL provides for giving proper credit to authors.  Its section 15.  I just downloaded the latest PCGen release and took a look at Section 15.  You do not list the people who made the .lst files in your Section 15.  Without them listed there is no way for anyone to give them proper credit.

Mongoose is a bad example for your argument.  They have taken an essentially open source project and have photocopied it word for word and then sold it.  The specific example I am speaking of is their Ultimate Feats book.  It took word for word feats from the NetBook of Feats, a completly free product.  But since the NetBook of Feats has all the authors listed in Section 15, they just updated Section 15 with all the authors names.  Mongoose did not contact each of those authors and ask for permission.  They just did it.  Which is fine thats how the OGL works.

[Edit] I just took a look again at the PCGen section 15 and it doesn't even mention PCGen. [/Edit]


----------



## Zub (Oct 23, 2003)

*Who are they talking about here?*

I saw this on the PCGEN board of directors minutes.  I wonder who the mystery publisher is.  Also why is Mynex back on the boards?  I thought he got in a hissy fit and quit PCGen a while back.

CMP Merton (9:26:06 PM): issue 13 - <edited>Publisher.
soulcatcher521 (9:26:09 PM): I would rather see the minutes be published
CMP Mynex (9:26:12 PM): <expletive removed> him.
soulcatcher521 (9:26:18 PM): I second that
CMP Mynex (9:26:18 PM): Oh did I say that out loud? So sorry
CMP Merton (9:26:19 PM): Since the minutes for this may be published.... 
LetohNereg (9:26:20 PM): Not full minutes
GwaithMobile (9:26:22 PM): I'd rather not see that in reality
ShutUpPaul (9:26:28 PM): no, really Mynes, tell us what you think 
karianna02 (9:26:37 PM): the fact that we report more often and we'll have an extra 5-10 2nds on the mailing list should make it open enough
ShutUpPaul (9:26:38 PM): Mynex even :-[
CMP Merton (9:26:49 PM): I think no matter what Paul replies to him, he will keep trying until he gets an answer
karianna02 (9:26:59 PM): the full minutes _will_ be published minus Mynex's swearing ;p
CMP Mynex (9:26:59 PM): Tell him no flat out and be done with him.
CMP Barak (9:27:03 PM): Isn;t Pauls letter an answer???
CMP Mynex (9:27:04 PM): (there that more polite?)
karianna02 (9:27:15 PM): Paul's letter should be fine
ShutUpPaul (9:27:24 PM): i'll get it out after the meeting
CMP Merton (9:27:29 PM): Paul's answer was fine, but he'll then start bugging me
karianna02 (9:27:39 PM): so ignore him ;p
GwaithMobile (9:27:42 PM): Why don't we do this on a case by case basis? Like we did for d20books?
CMP Mynex (9:27:42 PM): No by all means, include what I really think.. that should elicit some responses from my 'fans' when I was all 'fire and brimstone' as one of em pointed out. 
CMP Merton (9:27:53 PM): and I have so many other things going on that I doubt I'll make it much of a priority to reply to him
ShutUpPaul (9:27:57 PM): not if i don't give him your email Bryan...and i'm not sure if i have that written down..i communicate to you via the groups
soulcatcher521 (9:27:59 PM): tell him he can use it if he hopen sources his whole package
CMP Merton (9:28:28 PM): yeah - if he adds the LGPL we'll talk 
CMP Barak (9:28:30 PM): lmao
GwaithMobile (9:28:34 PM): Sounds good to me.
soulcatcher521 (9:28:40 PM): the day he gives his application away for free with source is the day we can work together
GwaithMobile (9:28:46 PM): And I'm sure the LST monkeys would be satisfied with thtat as well
karianna02 (9:28:53 PM): kewl
CMP Merton (9:29:00 PM): we skipped issue 1 because Tir wasn't here
CMP Mynex (9:29:02 PM): So tell him that.
CMP Mynex (9:29:12 PM): Tell him that if he LGPL's it, we'll actively work with him.
CMP Mynex (9:29:18 PM): Give HIM the option
GwaithMobile (9:29:40 PM): GPL or LGPL
soulcatcher521 (9:29:44 PM): I would accept GPL or the Berkeley license too ;-)
ShutUpPaul (9:29:49 PM): tell <edited Publisher> that PCGen will work with him if he becomes L/GPL?
CMP Mynex (9:29:51 PM): *shrug* either or...
CMP Mynex (9:29:54 PM): yep
soulcatcher521 (9:29:57 PM): yep
CMP Mynex (9:30:01 PM): He might, but I doubt it
ShutUpPaul (9:30:03 PM): what about others (Twin Rose...which is later)?
GwaithMobile (9:30:05 PM): Just say we'd be willing to discuss if he was...
CMP Mynex (9:30:06 PM): and if he does
CMP Mynex (9:30:09 PM): We'll get to TR


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 23, 2003)

Veander said:
			
		

> I don't think anyone is saying they are going to INCLUDE lst files or any file not of their own in their respective programs.  I do think some have said they would like to USE these files, such as witha  converter or transformer.  Thing is, I can't imagine PCGen to CSX working.  I would like it to, but right now I am happy with just a statblock import in CS rather than worry about file formats.  I mean the amout of detail that would be required to let CS sense what "affects" and conditions of affects...  goodness I can't imagine it.  I could probably say the same thing any way around with any other program (I think Luke said this before anyway).
> 
> If anyone is saying they think they have the right to put PCGen files in their program and specifically without even asking them to do it, I am fully against such a thing.  Again I don't think anyone is saying that.  It's possible miscommunication is happening if that's what you think soulcatcher.
> 
> V




ok, quick explaination:

1) I know that Twin Rose wants to interoperate with PCGen, and I think that is a wonderful thing.  Interoperability is fine, and besides, it's the user's data, so who are we to say what they do with it.

2) I am under the impression that some packages ARE looking into taking the pcgen lst files, and including them in what they release.

so, to sum up, I have no gripe with Campaign Suite's intentions to make it so you can import stat blocks from PCGen.  including pcgen data directly in a commercial release I do have a gripe with.

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD

same as before.....


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 23, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> Well the OGL provides for giving proper credit to authors.  Its section 15.  I just downloaded the latest PCGen release and took a look at Section 15.  You do not list the people who made the .lst files in your Section 15.  Without them listed there is no way for anyone to give them proper credit.




That is a beta release.  This has been corrected to the best of my knowledge in the upcoming 5.4 production release.



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> Mongoose is a bad example for your argument.  They have taken an essentially open source project and have photocopied it word for word and then sold it.  The specific example I am speaking of is their Ultimate Feats book.  It took word for word feats from the NetBook of Feats, a completly free product.  But since the NetBook of Feats has all the authors listed in Section 15, they just updated Section 15 with all the authors names.  Mongoose did not contact each of those authors and ask for permission.  They just did it.  Which is fine thats how the OGL works.




At least they re-format it.  They take the information, and give it a new presentation.  That is far better then just taking someone else's files, and publishing those as your own work.  Also, I find this an odd statement, weren't you the one who demanded that your feats never be in PCGen, even if we were fully OGL compliant?  I seem to recall you saying that long ago.



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> [Edit] I just took a look again at the PCGen section 15 and it doesn't even mention PCGen. [/Edit]




5.4 production will.

Devon


----------



## Veander (Oct 23, 2003)

As to the PCGEN board minutes conversation I am really disappointed how those who sell their programs are talked about within the PCGen professional heirarchy. No wonder no one is getting anything about interoperability done when open source people want everyone else to go open source or else. 

Soulcatcher: I get what you're saying completely.  I would have to say that if they use your stuff they shoudl say something.  It isn't like the d20 industry is so big that an email to the owner of any open content wouldn't be completely appropriate.  In the situation where Mongoose reportedly didn't ask for permission, I am really depressed by such a lack of effort - if indeed true.  Hey maybe the author(s) of Ultimate Feats is working so hard that they haven't a moment to lose, but I HIGHLY doubt it.  In my opinion, giving someone an email either asking or stating you are going to use their OGC is free advertising.  Example: Me: "I am going to include your prestige class in my campaign setting book, ok?" d20 author Sam: "Cool, no problem it is open content.  Say, what's the book?" Me: "Blah blah blah"  Sam later on to his friends in a passing conversation: "Hey, my PrC such and such is being used in Veander's new Book of Divinely-shaped Cow patties"  See, free advertising.    Oh and the Cow Pattie book will be out in March of 2074 for the 16.5 edition of DnD which will be owned by Microsoft.

As to the legalities of all of this I am clueless.  But again, if it is legal and if programmers include lst files without even saying anything, then I say shame on you for your laziness and participation in continuing this childish war with open vs. closed software.

V


----------



## Twin Rose (Oct 23, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> ok, quick explaination:
> 
> so, to sum up, I have no gripe with Campaign Suite's intentions to make it so you can import stat blocks from PCGen.  including pcgen data directly in a commercial release I do have a gripe with.




I wouldn't want to do this for a number of reasons.  First of all, I have specific deals to include Product Identity in data files created for CS, and I most definately would not for 3rd party files created by someone else - I wouldn't be able to call, say, an Arms & Armor file (already in CS) "Arms & Armor" because that's a trademark of bastion press.  I'd have to call it "WeaponsBook File" or something.  Secondly, I'm not convinced that the full functionality of the files that CS uses would even be PRESENT in PCGen files - we have areas for text and formatting, and with XML a whole bunch more.  It wouldn't be beneficial to include someone elses files when, with just a little time and money, I can make my own for inclusion in comercial releases.

Interoperablity is an entirely different beast.  This is a way of telling users, "Okay, you spent 40 hours getting all your own PRCs into CS, and you want to use them in PCGen because that's what 3 out of 5 of the players in your group use... here is how."  Whether or not, at the end of the day, people can share files outside of their personal group isn't the goal.  It's so people don't have to do the same work over and ovre again.


----------



## Tsyr (Oct 23, 2003)

Veander said:
			
		

> As to the PCGEN board minutes conversation I am really disappointed how those who sell their programs are talked about within the PCGen professional heirarchy. No wonder no one is getting anything about interoperability done when open source people want everyone else to go open source or else.




Welcome to the wonderful world of open source: The reason I distance myself from the community that makes the operating system I use. 

f34r teh 0p3n s0urc3 m4f14.


----------



## smetzger (Oct 23, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> That is a beta release.  This has been corrected to the best of my knowledge in the upcoming 5.4 production release.




Actually it was the most recent production release.




			
				soulcatcher said:
			
		

> At least they re-format it.  They take the information, and give it a new presentation.  That is far better then just taking someone else's files, and publishing those as your own work.  Also, I find this an odd statement, weren't you the one who demanded that your feats never be in PCGen, even if we were fully OGL compliant?  I seem to recall you saying that long ago.




Well, they didn't do much more than copy and paste and even included some of the editing mistakes that were in the NBoF.

Yes, I did complain about PCGen using my Feats without my permission in a non-OGL compliant program.  Much of my fuming at the time was trying to convince PCGen members that they did not have permission to use everything they were using and that they were not OGL compliant.  All I wanted was that if you use my Feats you comply with the OGL.  I never said you couldn't use my feats if you were OGL compliant; just that you could not unless you were OGL compliant.


----------



## Tir Gwaith (Oct 23, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

> Yes, I did complain about PCGen using my Feats without my permission in a non-OGL compliant program.  Much of my fuming at the time was trying to convince PCGen members that they did not have permission to use everything they were using and that they were not OGL compliant.  All I wanted was that if you use my Feats you comply with the OGL.  I never said you couldn't use my feats if you were OGL compliant; just that you could not unless you were OGL compliant.





Ahhhh....  Smetzger.   Last fall was interesting, was it not? ;p

Under the OGL, we have to have publisher permission for the name of the product (since we name our files that way, and that is a method of claiming compatibility.)  We have permission from the FanCC under the OGL (Paul King has the copy somewhere, if we don't have a copy with the datasets.)

We also make a policy of not putting stuff out without permission (not required by the OGL, but something we do) from the original authors.  Paul King and I are the chief enforcers of the OGL in our data files.  Since we have permission again to include the Netbook of Feats, we have included it.  However, since I have a request from a Copyright holder to not include his stuff, I made sure we didn't include it.  We still do the Section 15 (which mentions those non-existant items in our dataset) to the Exact Text of the original source.

I don't think I should publicly comment on anything else, since even if I voice my personal opinion, my current position as the PCGen Data Silverback would make that an official position in a lot of people's eyes.


----------



## Fractalwave (Oct 23, 2003)

*Interoperability*



			
				Tir Gwaith said:
			
		

> I don't think I should publicly comment on anything else, since even if I voice my personal opinion, my current position as the PCGen Data Silverback would make that an official position in a lot of people's eyes.




That is probably the most intelligent statement made in this thread thus far and the main reason I have not taken part in it until now.

On Interoperability:
Interoperability and the degree of interoperability sought is a function of users requesting it. As such, it should not be ignored or automatically rejected since everyone, open source or closed commercial product, benefits from meeting the requests of their users. That happens to be my personal belief as well as my business approach.

The degree to which interoperability can be achieved, assuming we all agree to it, is debatable. Even though we all use the same basic information, we handle it differently. That is something Twin Rose Software will likely not even investigate until agreements can be reached. However, from what I've seen, the programs simply are not set up to allow one dataset to move freely between them. To complain about something happening which at this time just isn't possible seems a bit silly to me. To complain about someone's desire for interoperability when discussions have not been completed is also just as silly since the degree of interoperability has not been determined and the discussions are not over.

To illustrate the point of view of users:
We have users who have coded their entire campaigns into Campaign Suite. Many happen to own all the other software available including DM Genie, DMF, PC Gen, etc. In their gaming groups, they provide the campaign rules etc and let the players know they accept character information in any of these other formats. These people have requested the ability to accept and transfer to and from these other programs various information, but mostly character information. Some of this information is already transferable in the form of statblocks configurable by the user. To move further requires more agreements with those in charge of other software products and other websites (there are some online gaming sites interested).

A function of the market is the FACT, not supposition, that users are going to freely transfer information. They will do so unofficially if we do nothing to enhance interoperability simply because they can and want to do so. While doing so may involve a great deal of effort on their part, it will still likely be done by somebody who will eventually share the information.

Our choice, as those who control the software products in question, is to either work together and provide something official which meets their needs without violating copyrights or other agreements or to just let them do it. There are many benefits to working together and that would be the best choice in my opinion.

What will be done officially? That remains to be seen.


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 23, 2003)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> I wouldn't want to do this for a number of reasons.  First of all, I have specific deals to include Product Identity in data files created for CS, and I most definately would not for 3rd party files created by someone else - I wouldn't be able to call, say, an Arms & Armor file (already in CS) "Arms & Armor" because that's a trademark of bastion press.  I'd have to call it "WeaponsBook File" or something.  Secondly, I'm not convinced that the full functionality of the files that CS uses would even be PRESENT in PCGen files - we have areas for text and formatting, and with XML a whole bunch more.  It wouldn't be beneficial to include someone elses files when, with just a little time and money, I can make my own for inclusion in comercial releases.
> 
> Interoperablity is an entirely different beast.  This is a way of telling users, "Okay, you spent 40 hours getting all your own PRCs into CS, and you want to use them in PCGen because that's what 3 out of 5 of the players in your group use... here is how."  Whether or not, at the end of the day, people can share files outside of their personal group isn't the goal.  It's so people don't have to do the same work over and ovre again.




*sigh*

My position on this has been unwavering from the begining of this thread.  This sort of interoperability is positive, healthy, and desirable.

I (once again) have no beef with TR and CS, and the desire to make it work alongside with pcgen, using the user's data.

As far as the lst files, I know that CS does not intend to use them.

I put forward again, that perhaps the 4 major packages can sit down at some point, and define a source data file type that they all participate in maintaining.  One would note that even if a file doesn't have all the information needed, if it's XML, one can easily use XSLT and a second XML file containing the extra information needed for that package.  Centralizing at least some of the information is better then nothing. (course this does mean we all need to be able to read XML  )

The above paragraph may appear to not jive with my previous statements, but it really does....the important difference is that we would all be drawing from a pool that we all helped fill, and volunteers who assisted in this project would do so from the beginning with an understanding that the data would be used in open source, AND close applications.

Devon Jones


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 23, 2003)

Fractalwave said:
			
		

> A function of the market is the FACT, not supposition, that users are going to freely transfer information. They will do so unofficially if we do nothing to enhance interoperability simply because they can and want to do so. While doing so may involve a great deal of effort on their part, it will still likely be done by somebody who will eventually share the information.
> 
> Our choice, as those who control the software products in question, is to either work together and provide something official which meets their needs without violating copyrights or other agreements or to just let them do it. There are many benefits to working together and that would be the best choice in my opinion.
> 
> What will be done officially? That remains to be seen.




There are two conversations taking place on this thread.  Interoperability, and wholesale useage of source data.  I have always understood CS's desires to be one of interoperability. My concerns that I have aired here do not relate to interoperability. Not a problem.  Bring it on.

There are many benefits of all 4 of us working together.  I would like to see that.  When do we start?

Devon


----------



## smetzger (Oct 23, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> There are many benefits of all 4 of us working together.  I would like to see that.  When do we start?




I actually broached this subject with CMP when they first anounced the WOTC splatbook deal.  But nothing ever came of it.

I am not one of "the 4", and I think preference should be given to the requirements of the major players.  But I would like to help out in this effort any way that I can.



I'll put a smiley face on that since maybe we can all work together.


----------



## Henry (Oct 23, 2003)

Speaking purely as a fan, that's something I would like to see as well (the major players working together on a common data reference format). If anything, we should learn from the wrangling going on between corps like Microsoft, Corel, etc. and figure out commonality of data sources, and at least translate between one another. I can open my documents from Word to Wordperfect - why can't I open my files between PCGen and Campaign Suite?


----------



## soulcatcher (Oct 23, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

> Speaking purely as a fan, that's something I would like to see as well (the major players working together on a common data reference format). If anything, we should learn from the wrangling going on between corps like Microsoft, Corel, etc. and figure out commonality of data sources, and at least translate between one another. I can open my documents from Word to Wordperfect - why can't I open my files between PCGen and Campaign Suite?




If nothing else, because the systems all do work VERY differently.

For those interested, I ahve posted a first draft of a list of items that I think an interoperable character export should be capable of storing. (note, I think some thigns should be required, and others optional)

Suite Interoperability 

Devon Jones
GMGen Regent
PCGen BoD


----------



## Fractalwave (Oct 23, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> There are two conversations taking place on this thread.  Interoperability, and wholesale useage of source data.  I have always understood CS's desires to be one of interoperability. My concerns that I have aired here do not relate to interoperability. Not a problem.  Bring it on.
> 
> There are many benefits of all 4 of us working together.  I would like to see that.  When do we start?
> 
> Devon




There was a third conversation...way up at the first post. It was Chris' post regarding some emails he was receiving. To me, it's important because all those types of emails seem to accomplish is irritate or create a devisiveness that slows our progress towards interoperability. Plus, it gives you finger sprain from hitting the delete key all the time.

To the fans of all the various software:
There's really no reason for those types of messages via email or otherwise. If you get nothing else from this thread, you should know that what we are working on is interoperability. It's a totally different animal from the "abuse" you were assuming.

Okay, I'm off my soapbox. Let's get to work!!


----------



## karianna (Oct 24, 2003)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> Some months ago, I posted on a thread regarding XML datasets for the popular character generator "PCGen".  To clear the air about something, what I posted was that an end-user could make an XSL Stylesheet to transform one set of XML to another and use the files interchangibly.
> 
> Recently, this was shown to me, and my email box has been getting complaints:
> 
> ...




Hi all,

Sorry I've been caught up on real life lately, so my apologies for not responding to this earlier.

Pauls's comment was made _before_ he knew what Twin Rose was actually trying to do (that is to use the Output Sheets like open RPG does and not the data sets) and therefore should not be taken as his or the BoD's actual viewpoint now (some other members of the BoD also didn't realise).

It was my fault for not removing that from our posted minutes and I humbly apologise for that, I'm sorry Chris.

I have posted back over @ pcgen Y! further comments on the BoD's position in dealing with publishers who want to use PCGen LST files vs using PCGEN's output.  I suggest those who are interested, go view the threads over there .

Oh, and thanks for the beer @ Gencon Chris, it was nice to meet you! 

Karianna
TM SB
PCGen BoD


----------



## smetzger (Oct 24, 2003)

karianna said:
			
		

> I have posted back over @ pcgen Y! further comments on the BoD's position in dealing with publishers who want to use PCGen LST files vs using PCGEN's output.  I suggest those who are interested, go view the threads over there .




Could you post a link to that thread?  I can't find it.

Thanks,
Scott


----------

