# What were the 3 software developers ordered to cease and dissist?



## Eternalknight (Aug 12, 2002)

Wizards have apparently ordered cease and dissist on three pieces of software, one of them being PC Gen.  Does anyone have any information on what the other two were?


----------



## MJEggertson (Aug 12, 2002)

Source?


----------



## jmettraux (Aug 12, 2002)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/message/42389


----------



## Eternalknight (Aug 12, 2002)

http://boards.wizards.com/rpg/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=132;t=000373 It includes quotes from our very own Morrus and from GamingReport.com.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 12, 2002)

Before i believe this i would first like to get some confirmation from people who are working on PcGen and the like (I really want to hear from Luke, is RPM still possible dude?)...

Now let's asume this is true. This would, of course, piss of a LOT of people. Not only the curent users of software that will be 'killed', but also people who where still in Limbo wheter or not to _buy_ e-tools. If this where true i think this has a lot of impact on e-tools as well, ever seen a product sunk? Just lay back and watch if the above rumours are true...


----------



## Eternalknight (Aug 12, 2002)

Posted on the Wizards messageboards by someone from PC Gen:



> 1) Did we get an official C&D order? No.
> 2) Did we talk with a WotC representative about PCGen and OGL
> compliancy? Yes
> 3) Are we shutting down/being forced to shut down? No.
> ...


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 12, 2002)

Thanks Eternal! This is good news, actually exactly the opposite of the rumour above. i hope that both (and others) can come to a satisfactory agreement...


----------



## Eternalknight (Aug 12, 2002)

Let's just hope Leopold can confirm that the rumors aren't true.


----------



## bushfire (Aug 12, 2002)

Actually the above quote from Mynex posted on the Wiz Boards is from the Yahoo PCGen group (I should know I posted it   )

What it sounds like to me is that the guys from PCGen finally met with the lawyers from Wotc  



> 4) Are we working with WotC to address their issues/concerns? Yes.
> Unqualified yes. We've been trying to get dialog with them (WotC) for
> 18 months now, we have it, we're going to do everything we can to make
> it 100% positive for them and us.




It is nice to see that the PCGen guys really do sound like they want be be "legal" (unlike some of the more rabid fans). In the long run this sounds like a good thing for PCGen.


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 12, 2002)

*quote from Bryan*

This is from Bryan, the head of PCGen.  He sent this out to the PCGen list today (can also be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/message/42363)


> Some of you may be wondering why some stuff has been pulled from our data files and why all the pre-3.0.0 releases have been removed (well, hidden, not removed).  There will be some other changes as well, but they'll mostly be minor in nature from a user-perspective. We'll have a formal announcement about all this in the very near future, but believe me when I tell you it's actually good news. We're dotting our i's and crossing our t's to make sure everything is in perfect order so that absolutely no one can have any qualm about us from any kind of perspective.  We'll give more details when thingshave firmed up, but things are looking good.  We've had  some very exciting discussions with a number of companies which could completely surpass my wildest dreams of what PCGen could become. You'll understand why I have to be vague once we can make all the details available.  This is gonna be incredible!


----------



## smetzger (Aug 12, 2002)

Eternalknight said:
			
		

> *Posted on the Wizards messageboards by someone from PC Gen:
> Could we be? Yes. But that holds true for every other CharGen
> program that is fan based.
> *




I disagree with that one.  There are plenty of ways to do this legally and some developers already are doing it legally.

What were the other two software packages?  TwinRose and RPM?


----------



## Luke (Aug 12, 2002)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> *I really want to hear from Luke, is RPM still possible dude?
> *




Haven't received any cease and desist order. Far as I know, RPM is fine.

Just over a month ago I "got grilled" by Wizards over the legality of RPM. I've actually gone to a *lot* of trouble to ensure that RPM complies properly with the OGL. Originally I called it D20master, but changed the name after I realized that you couldn't do the software justice under the d20 trademark. Luckily, Ryan Dancey confirmed this pretty early for me.
I actually went through the legality check with Anthony Valterra, and I believe that I came through satisfactorily. I have to say that I've found Anthony to be very pleasant, firm, and fair. Guys like Ryan and Anthony make D&D/D20 the great system that it is today. In fact, I've actually found Anthony to be quite helpful, outside his role of ensuring licence compliance.

My experience to date is that these WotC guys *are* for the fans. There are certain things that they have to do to fulfil their corporate obligations, but the properly licensed SRD is an incredibly great gift they've given us. It also happens to have worked out really well for *them* 

I think that the PCGen guys aren't too worried anyway. They'll very likely have to pull at least the Wizards non-SRD material.

I'll be *very* surprised if I'm served a "cease and desist", but if there is an issue, it's almost certainly likely to be something that can be cleaned up within the time-period allowed for by the licence.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 12, 2002)

Thanks Luke for the quick response!


----------



## MaxKaladin (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: quote from Bryan*



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> *This is from Bryan, the head of PCGen.  He sent this out to the PCGen list today (can also be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/message/42363)
> *
> Some of you may be wondering why some stuff has been pulled from our data files and why all the pre-3.0.0 releases have been removed (well, hidden, not removed). There will be some other changes as well, but they'll mostly be minor in nature from a user-perspective. We'll have a formal announcement about all this in the very near future, but believe me when I tell you it's actually good news. We're dotting our i's and crossing our t's to make sure everything is in perfect order so that absolutely no one can have any qualm about us from any kind of perspective. We'll give more details when thingshave firmed up, but things are looking good. We've had some very exciting discussions with a number of companies which could completely surpass my wildest dreams of what PCGen could become. You'll understand why I have to be vague once we can make all the details available. This is gonna be incredible!




That's what I was afraid of.  In order to be 'legal' they'll have to remove a bunch of data so it's a major hassle to use any optional material with it (since you'll have to type reams of data in by yourself).  That's a major blow to me since I do all my PCs and major NPCs in PCGen.  It looks like some of the other companies out there have a different view of things.  It would be ironic if, in order to continue using the software that has become so central to my campaign, I were to stop using Wizards suppliments and only used 3rd party stuff because that's what I could get data for.


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: quote from Bryan*



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> *That's what I was afraid of.  In order to be 'legal' they'll have to remove a bunch of data so it's a major hassle to use any optional material with it (since you'll have to type reams of data in by yourself).  That's a major blow to me since I do all my PCs and major NPCs in PCGen.  It looks like some of the other companies out there have a different view of things.  It would be ironic if, in order to continue using the software that has become so central to my campaign, I were to stop using Wizards suppliments and only used 3rd party stuff because that's what I could get data for. *



This just from Mynex (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/message/42488)


> Simple and direct. PCGen is NOT going anywhere, it is NOT dying, it is NOT 'splitting' up and going underground.
> 
> We won't have the other Non-SRD WotC material for a while, and because of licensing issues, Lucas, Jordan, etc, we may never get them back, BUT, we have a path to follow that is long and arduous, but may allow us to get them back in eventually.
> 
> So everyone please relax and stop trying to guess what's up, we'll let everyone know very soon what's up specifically.



So, it looks like they may get some of the non-SRD stuff later, just not right now.  However, they've promised to put out an announcement in the next couple days.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 12, 2002)

I'm not surprised in the least. 

I mentioned this many times on the WOTC board as well as Fluid's. The reason the SRD hasn't been updated in forever was always in my mind a way for WOTC/HASBRO to keep complete control of those properties for just this reason. And now it seems, I am proven correct. Watch and see as all of the non-SRD material is taken out of PCGen, making it, functionally, no more than ETools is presently.

I predicted this move to hobble the free competition once ETools came out so the gaming community would be forced to wait for ETools to catch up with the other more complete programmes like PCGen. You can't sell ETools if there are programmes out there with more content. Everyone of course, told me this was complete paranoia and if WOTC/HASBRO hadn't done it up to this point, then they would never bother.

I never blamed Fluid, and as a matter of fact, I had decided to think positively about the product ever since Scott answered my expansion questions, which have now been reported widely and encouraged many to buy ETools. Now I'm glad there weren't many copies available at my FLGS. I've been saved a world of anxiety concerning whether or not this product would be updated.

My current prediction: ETools will have to sell great, Pokemon sized amounts within the next 90 days or WOTC will drop it faster than Chainmail and deny anyone the right to expand the base programme beyond what is contained in the stillborn SRD. The corporate heads are THAT kind of business person.

I think it's about time that WOTC/HASBRO sold D&D to somebody who cares about the product, won't fire off the designers and put creative decisions in the hands of business managers, and who can see profit as meaning 'any amount left over after costs have been subtracted' as opposed to 'any amount, after cost, that rivals the GNP of a third world nation which ensures the executives a new 100 foot boat and house in Malibu.'


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 12, 2002)

*Re: Re: quote from Bryan*



			
				MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> *That's what I was afraid of.  In order to be 'legal' they'll have to remove a bunch of data so it's a major hassle to use any optional material with it (since you'll have to type reams of data in by yourself).  That's a major blow to me since I do all my PCs and major NPCs in PCGen.  It looks like some of the other companies out there have a different view of things.  It would be ironic if, in order to continue using the software that has become so central to my campaign, I were to stop using Wizards suppliments and only used 3rd party stuff because that's what I could get data for. *




Don't be foolish, just because it's not on the main pcgen site, doesn't mean the data isn't around. It just doesn't come with each and every install...

Now, i'm guessing that you still have the 2.7.0 .lst files, if you don't just email me and i'll send them to you...

I'm very happy that we still have a tool where we can customize to our hearts content. Thanks PcGen folks!


----------



## MaxKaladin (Aug 12, 2002)

Oh, I have half a dozen sets of data files around.  Its a side effect of not clearing out my 'downloads' directory regularly.  I'm more concerned about future releases.


----------



## Leopold (Aug 12, 2002)

Howdy folks! Just got back from GenCon after an exhausting Tour of Duty! Allot of stuff went down and allot of things took place that I am not 100% privy too nor can confirm things.

What I can tell you is this: PCGen is alive and well. We are going to go through the code to make it OGL compliant as both Mynex and Merton said. They had a meeting with Anthony Valdera that helped explain allot of things to us as far as code and licensing compliance and so forth. 

What does this mean to y'all? All the material NOT in the SRD has been removed from the releases. All the material from the D20 publishers that have given us permission is still there as well as dozens (and I mean DOZENS!) of new companies will be added in the future. 

We were among the 3 that got talked to and if the others that got talked too want to chime in than by all means they can. I don't know for sure who else was spoken with so I cannot confirm things and don't want rumors to start that aren't true, bad politics and all.


So folks, in a few short weeks we will be getting things in order, we have so many new books that will be encoded into PCGen that it's ridiculous. I will be working with Mynex, Tir Gwaith (big lst designer), and Meton_Monk to get a running list of titles that y'all can expect from us in the future. 

The future for PCGen is bright and our star is shining and it's only going to go up from here. Trust me on this!


A full gencon recap will be posted when I can talk with the other guys to say what we can and cannot say. But for now folks, download PCGen with the material that is in the release now and provide as much feedback on it as you can.

Questions, comments, and concerns, are always welcome and appreciated.


Leopold


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 12, 2002)

MaxKaladin said:
			
		

> *Oh, I have half a dozen sets of data files around.  Its a side effect of not clearing out my 'downloads' directory regularly.  I'm more concerned about future releases. *




Someone will post it somewhere and it will be spread around like the plague, that's just the way it is...


----------



## Leopold (Aug 12, 2002)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Someone will post it somewhere and it will be spread around like the plague, that's just the way it is... *




We at the PCGen team cannot condone that action. We will not be housing those files nor releasing them at this time due to the licensing issue.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 12, 2002)

Leopold said:
			
		

> *We at the PCGen team cannot condone that action. We will not be housing those files nor releasing them at this time due to the licensing issue. *




I understand that perfectly and even agree on the reasons why you won't be hosting them. Still they'll be around, for the same reason that there are FR fan created files around for e-tools. People create them and want to share in the usefulness of it, no matter how i look at it i can't see the harm in that...


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 12, 2002)

Leopold said:
			
		

> *We at the PCGen team cannot condone that action. We will not be housing those files nor releasing them at this time due to the licensing issue. *



No offense Leopold, but I'll believe that when they're off of the sourceforge site.  I can still d/l stuff from back to version 2.0.1.


----------



## Leopold (Aug 12, 2002)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> *
> No offense Leopold, but I'll believe that when they're off of the sourceforge site.  I can still d/l stuff from back to version 2.0.1. *






good point! Thanks for the info. I will get that looked into and removed...no sense saying one thing but doing another...


----------



## dafrca (Aug 13, 2002)

Boy that did not take long. All gone...

dafrca


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 13, 2002)

dafrca said:
			
		

> *Boy that did not take long. All gone...*



We must be looking at different folders, 'cause the one I get my stuff from (which is, btw, the same one EVERYone gets their files from), still has the stuff back to 2.0.1.  And I refreshed my screen several time *and* emptied my internet cache just to makesure.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 13, 2002)

Nathanael said:
			
		

> *I'm not surprised in the least.
> 
> I predicted this move to hobble the free competition once ETools came out so the gaming community would be forced to wait for ETools to catch up with the other more complete programmes like PCGen. You can't sell ETools if there are programmes out there with more content. Everyone of course, told me this was complete paranoia and if WOTC/HASBRO hadn't done it up to this point, then they would never bother.
> *




I don't know why you used power words like "Free" when its far from the truth. WoTC owns the IP, IP is buisness, protecting your IP and serving violaters with C&D regardless wether they are profitting from its sale is not "hobbling the free competition".

From what I've heard etools is selling well, doubt it will selling millions, but neither have the core books. But I would wager there are more etools users right now, than pcgen users.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 13, 2002)

Considering the  lack of ETools availability around the US, and the limited scope of that programme, I highly doubt its users outnumber PCGen users. Especially since Mac users can use PCGen without PC Emulators.

The Core books do sell well, by the way. That's the best selling item. It has to be or there would be little purpose in their creating more supplements, not to mention the fact that D&D would have been dumped long ago. 

Oh, and on that note, if ETools doesn't sell millions, according to WOTC/HASBRO's previous history for dealing with items that don't sell well by their standerds (i.e multi millions), you can kiss ETools and any possible expansions goodbye.


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2002)

Nathanael said:
			
		

> *
> I'm not surprised in the least.
> 
> I mentioned this many times on the WOTC board as well as Fluid's. The reason the SRD hasn't been updated in forever was always in my mind a way for WOTC/HASBRO to keep complete control of those properties for just this reason. And now it seems, I am proven correct. Watch and see as all of the non-SRD material is taken out of PCGen, making it, functionally, no more than ETools is presently.*



You forget. While PCGen cannot make use of any Wizards' copyrighted material that may not appear in the SRD, PCGen CAN incorporate OGC material from other sources such as Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Fast Forward Entertainment.

Now they can't advertise they have these material from other sources, but from I have seen they made an effort to contact third-party publisher for the use of the name and product along with the OGC material, making PCGen firmly established as THE _d20_ electronic aid.

Of course, while it is a major convenience that the PCGen developers are willing to volunteer their free time (in a world where there is no such thing as "free time") to make expansions, the PCGen software must support itself by allowing us users to input data on our own.




> *I never blamed Fluid, and as a matter of fact, I had decided to think positively about the product ever since Scott answered my expansion questions, which have now been reported widely and encouraged many to buy ETools. Now I'm glad there weren't many copies available at my FLGS. I've been saved a world of anxiety concerning whether or not this product would be updated.*



Exactly what did he say with regards to future support and expansion? Some can't help but ask the question, why were they not included in the core _e-Tools_?




> *My current prediction: ETools will have to sell great, Pokemon sized amounts within the next 90 days or WOTC will drop it faster than Chainmail and deny anyone the right to expand the base programme beyond what is contained in the stillborn SRD. The corporate heads are THAT kind of business person.*



At least they're generous to put the product and test the market. If I headed the Hasbro/Wizards business, I would have shut down the project before we bleed heavily. Let the contract with Fluid expire or if I have the power, terminate it.

Then rehire Ryan Dancey as Project Manager and try to recruit the PCGen developers.




> *I think it's about time that WOTC/HASBRO sold D&D to somebody who cares about the product, won't fire off the designers and put creative decisions in the hands of business managers, and who can see profit as meaning 'any amount left over after costs have been subtracted' as opposed to 'any amount, after cost, that rivals the GNP of a third world nation which ensures the executives a new 100 foot boat and house in Malibu.' *



Sorry, bro. Despite this setback, I doubt they will sell _D&D_ and other TSR's asset to someone else. _D&D 3e_ product line are still selling strong with the debut of the _Epic Level Handbook_ and there is the hype regarding a controversial product, _The Book of Vile Darkness._


----------



## gregweller (Aug 13, 2002)

Well, I've still got my 2.73 .lst files.  And I'm sure a lot of people have other versions. And that's the wonderful thing about the Internet. If one person has the files, everyone has the files.  I just stuck my copy in my Kazaa shared folder.


----------



## Eternalknight (Aug 13, 2002)

So the .lst files from previous versions will work with the current realease?


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 13, 2002)

Eternalknight said:
			
		

> *So the .lst files from previous versions will work with the current realease? *




Yup! First thing i tested...


----------



## Twin Rose (Aug 13, 2002)

*Campaign Suite*

We just got back from GenCon, too, and what a GREAT show it was!  There is no problem at all with Campaign Suite, and I'm surprised people even thought there would be.  We have a d20 logo on our product, which gives us and WOTC each certain protections - such as grace periods, and times of breech and cure.

I assume, then, that PCGen will register the Open Gaming License and become fully compliant?  I'd like to see how this is done...

I don't know who all got hit, but I've been following this very closely and working with the folks there at WOTC, and will be continuing to do so to ensure that we can all have great software products to make our games easier.

I'd like to hear exactly what does come of this, in terms of distribution, and I think that it should be warned that being too public about distributing trademarks and copyrights on Kazaa could very swiftly help throw a monkeywrench in the entire process AND in fact hurt us software developers who are trying to prove to WOTC that their copyrights are safe...

By all means, support the community, but don't distribute what you don't have a right to distribute.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 13, 2002)

*Re: Campaign Suite*



			
				Twin Rose said:
			
		

> *I'd like to hear exactly what does come of this, in terms of distribution, and I think that it should be warned that being too public about distributing trademarks and copyrights on Kazaa could very swiftly help throw a monkeywrench in the entire process AND in fact hurt us software developers who are trying to prove to WOTC that their copyrights are safe...
> *




Shouldn't it be "AND in fact hurt us software developers who are trying to make a buck on it..."? Something i have absolutely no problem with, but don't beat around the bush. If you have a great product that i will use a lot i'll try to support it financially when i can.



			
				Twin Rose said:
			
		

> *By all means, support the community, but don't distribute what you don't have a right to distribute..
> *




The problem is that there' currently no way to get it from someone who has the rights to distribute it in any form or for any program. It's not even available for e-tools. That gives us no other way to effectively use RPG software with any WOTC material that isn't in the SRD. Some might say "Ah, ain't that a shame... Life with it punk!", i generally don't accept that.

The alternative is to input the data into datafiles yourself, i don't know about you but i don't have the time to input all those books into a format that is readable by a RPG program. I might do a part, but certainly not all. I have been making 50-60 hour work weeks and now that i have a couple of days off i'm bussy making my phpshop, i'm happy enough if i and my friends can find the time to play a D&D game once a week for a few hours. Now let's say that i would have taken the time to input everything in, can i now expect my group of four players to do the same? Because i technically am not allowed to let them use my files, although they have all the books i inputed. Thus, no offense intended and no harm intended, but unless someone comes with a good alternative we're stuck with doing things that are murky at best...


----------



## smetzger (Aug 13, 2002)

Ok, so evidently WOTC has asked PCGen folks not to distribute WOTC IP material.


Will WOTC have a double standard?  Will WOTC allow Fluid to distribute IP material?  Will WOTC allow other people to post splatbook material for e-tools on there websites?

If they allow the above it would be quite easy to develop programs that use this as there data back end.  Or you could say write a program to pull all the information out and format it however you want say .lst files for PCGen or Paradox for RPM.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 13, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *If they allow the above it would be quite easy to develop programs that use this as there data back end.  Or you could say write a program to pull all the information out and format it however you want say .lst files for PCGen or Paradox for RPM. *




Shhh! Don't give away all the secrets ;-)

I was thinking the exact same thing, great minds do think alike ;-)


----------



## Luke (Aug 13, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *Will WOTC have a double standard?  Will WOTC allow Fluid to distribute IP material?  Will WOTC allow other people to post splatbook material for e-tools on there websites?
> *



Nothing wrong with allowing Fluid to distribute WotC material. It's theirs to do with as they wish.
The interesting part will be if they condone and host import  material from other D20 publishers. That would put them in effectively the same position as PCGen, unless the 3rd party material is specifically designated as open content.



> *If they allow the above it would be quite easy to develop programs that use this as there data back end.  Or you could say write a program to pull all the information out and format it however you want say .lst files for PCGen or Paradox for RPM. *



Oh yes. I've waited a long time to offer an E-Tools import from RPM. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you own both, that's cool.


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 13, 2002)

Do you offer an access database in your programme, Luke? If not than I'm afraid you're SOL.

This whole thing would be moot if WOTC had expanded their SRD like they said they would, in Good Faith, mind you. But as I've said, the SRD is a tool for them to get OUR material, not open up theirs, so they can fire off more game designers/writers and let us do all the work. I mean seriously, it's sad when the creative personel at a game company are outnumbered by the business managers.

As for Twin Rose's CS, I wasn't aware that you had the legal right to create non-SRD files. I thought you were using the same method as PCGen and depending on the community to make the lists for you. If so, you are in violation up to your eyeballs by letting these'IP Pirates' distribute content for your software. What's the story?


----------



## Fast Learner (Aug 13, 2002)

Nathanael said:
			
		

> *Do you offer an access database in your programme, Luke? If not than I'm afraid you're SOL.*




No, that's wrong. E-tools exports XML very nicely. It's a comparitively trivial task to import XML of people's characters and monsters compared to somehow keeping synchronized with a full E-tools database.

It's one of the best things about E-tools: beautiful, relatively clean XML exporting.

Oh, and for further clarification, Luke's app doesn't need to "offer an access database" even if he wants to read directly out of E-tools since a free control from Microsoft would allow him to read from and write to it at will. That's the beauty of an Access back-end.


----------



## RobNJ (Aug 13, 2002)

Eternalknight said:
			
		

> *So the .lst files from previous versions will work with the current realease? *



Current? Yes.  Future? Who knows.


----------



## Luke (Aug 13, 2002)

Nathanael said:
			
		

> *Do you offer an access database in your programme, Luke? If not than I'm afraid you're SOL.
> 
> This whole thing would be moot if WOTC had expanded their SRD like they said they would, in Good Faith, mind you. But as I've said, the SRD is a tool for them to get OUR material, not open up theirs, so they can fire off more game designers/writers and let us do all the work. I mean seriously, it's sad when the creative personel at a game company are outnumbered by the business managers.
> 
> As for Twin Rose's CS, I wasn't aware that you had the legal right to create non-SRD files. I thought you were using the same method as PCGen and depending on the community to make the lists for you. If so, you are in violation up to your eyeballs by letting these'IP Pirates' distribute content for your software. What's the story? *




- I don't need to use Access to import from Access.

- WotC has been reasonable with the SRD so far. They did add Psionics. They claimed on the official OGL list that they were waiting on staffing to add Epic as well (I *think* it was Epic). The SRD content (the foundation for virtually every D20 publisher), has been grounded on content largely in the draft stage for a ridiculous amount of time. When you consider, however, all the retrenchments and restructuring WotC has experienced over the last year, there's plenty of room to allow for the benefit of the doubt.

- I don't think that WotC can use the SRD to get our material. If you build on the SRD with closed material, it's *yours*. That's why you don't (and won't) see wizards republishing other D20 publisher work.

- What do you mean by non-SRD files? The system is inherently expandable, and this is fundamental to the licenses. When you add to it, you designate new content as being open (not copyright, and freely usable), or closed (you're not allowed to redistribute yourself).
In a nutshell, the rules of redistribution of data/rules go as follows:
- SRD is fine, as long as you comply with either the D20 or OGL licences.
- WotC non-SRD material is not okay. There's simply no avenue there except a special license (very expensive) or permission. This stuff is covered by neither the D20 or OGL licenses, being beyond both since Wizards own it.
- 3rd party publishers must themselves adhere to either the D20 or OGL licenses for anything they produce, and anything they designate as "open" is okay for anyone to use. You, in turn must adhere to the "virul" license the content is published under.

Till now PCGen has operated under neither the OGL or D20 licenses, simply "breaking" copyright. The approach was to use any material they could get their hands on, and use it until there was a complaint from the copyright owner. My understanding is that complainants often entered into discussion with the PCGen crew, and then agreed to have their source material included in PCGen. I'm pretty darn sure that WotC themselves never gave permission (hence the recent withdrawal of non-SRD Wizards material).
PCGen was certainly in an interesting position till now (and this may continue ).  Essentially, they had a "critical mass" making them the sole standard, where any D20 publisher *not* allowing their material to be included was disadvantaged competitively with other D20 publishers.
The interesting thing now is whether E-Tools may be in a position to take over that role. It may well be that D20 publishers may prefer their material to be E-Tools compatible (or maybe both).

Regardless of all this, and whatever the future brings, we can all agree that PCGen has played an *extremely* significant role in providing a crucial service to gamers up to this point. Mynex, Leopold, and the crew have done an amazing job. After all, why did WotC allow such a massive violation till now. They created a (brilliant) 3rd edition set of mechanics that screams for software support, and until now they couldn't provide it themselves. Whilst the crackdown does seem cruelly timed (within days of the E-Tools release), WotC have established a precedent for "D20 house cleaning" at Cons, and they're relying on big initial ETools sales to stop the project from dying. They must have poured over a million into it's development by now (if you consider all the trashed early mapper, graphics and sound work ). I'm sure that PCGen is a large part of the reason that many D&D consumers persisted with 3rd edition, and it's a shame that WotC will probably not really be able to thank PCGen for the great assistance it has provided in helping prop up 3rd edition till now...

Regards,


----------



## Luke (Aug 13, 2002)

[accidental dupicate message deleted]


----------



## Leopold (Aug 13, 2002)

Luke said:
			
		

> Till now PCGen has operated under neither the OGL or D20 licenses, simply "breaking" copyright. The approach was to use any material they could get their hands on, and use it until there was a complaint from the copyright owner. My understanding is that complainants often entered into discussion with the PCGen crew, and then agreed to have their source material included in PCGen. I'm pretty darn sure that WotC themselves never gave permission (hence the recent withdrawal of non-SRD Wizards material).




we did have some type of 'permission' from WoTC a long time ago but nothing offical. The details are sketchy and I am not completely sure of them but I know emails were exchanged by but whom and who I don't know for sure.




> PCGen was certainly in an interesting position till now (and this may continue ).  Essentially, they had a "critical mass" making them the sole standard, where any D20 publisher *not* allowing their material to be included was disadvantaged competitively with other D20 publishers.




well that seems a bit harsher than it really was. PCGen still is a fanbased tool and application. We feel that reaching out to all gamers regardless of system used or game utilized is key. Hence we asked every publisher that we could for permission to allow us to use them. What we got was a bunch of people on the list saying "What product is this? What does it do? It's in PCGen so I must buy it!" or "I refuse to buy it until it's in PCGEN!" Variations of those have occured but it still is to the publishers advantage to allow PC's to be created using PCGen as it does not cost them a thing and makes for great PR.



> Regardless of all this, and whatever the future brings, we can all agree that PCGen has played an *extremely* significant role in providing a crucial service to gamers up to this point. Mynex, Leopold, and the crew have done an amazing job.




I am merely one voice among hundreds who are pleased that the community enjoys the work. My role is small compared to others but just knowing that people like the product make it all worthwhile.




> I'm sure that PCGen is a large part of the reason that many D&D consumers persisted with 3rd edition, and it's a shame that WotC will probably not really be able to thank PCGen for the great assistance it has provided in helping prop up 3rd edition till now...
> 
> , [/B]




thank you Luke for the kind words. I know we work hard to bring the community the best that they deserve. The future for us is bright and it is a great thing to see the community supporting us as we do for them.


----------



## Twin Rose (Aug 13, 2002)

Nathanael said:
			
		

> *
> As for Twin Rose's CS, I wasn't aware that you had the legal right to create non-SRD files. I thought you were using the same method as PCGen and depending on the community to make the lists for you. If so, you are in violation up to your eyeballs by letting these'IP Pirates' distribute content for your software. What's the story? *




The nature of software is such that files can be created and shared.  I "allow it" in that the software is flexible, but I certainly do not condone it.  In fact, in some ways it cuts into what I try to accomplish, and when everyone "knows" that they can get it very easily I fall under more scrutiny.  Certainly, someone could claim that since Adobe Acrobat lets people scan in the players handbook, it would be in violation, but this isn't the case... It's what the end users do with their license that is the issue.

Recently, we found a pirate site in Russia that had been distributing CS along with data from WOTC.  This is highly frowned upon by both of us, as you can imagine.  We reported the site to WOTC itself, as well as came at them through the TrialWare professional association - an organization dedicated to removing hacked material from the web.  I would be putting out quite a double-standard if I began endorsing people 'stealing' IP and putting it out there.



			
				Leopold said:
			
		

> *
> well that seems a bit harsher than it really was. PCGen still is a fanbased tool and application. We feel that reaching out to all gamers regardless of system used or game utilized is key. Hence we asked every publisher that we could for permission to allow us to use them. What we got was a bunch of people on the list saying "What product is this? What does it do? It's in PCGen so I must buy it!" or "I refuse to buy it until it's in PCGEN!" Variations of those have occured but it still is to the publishers advantage to allow PC's to be created using PCGen as it does not cost them a thing and makes for great PR.
> *




By the way, it was great to meet you at the Con, Leo, and put a face to the name and shake your hand.  I think what you guys do is great, if a hard task.  Despite what people seem to get stuck in their head, CS is a lot more than a character generator.  If it was JUST that, our sales would not be up and we'd not be going to distribution after E-Tools came out.  We aren't in competition 

But, I think some of the publishers got the "impression" that the way you guys said "We'll post the names of anyone not wanting us to use their stuff" was some sort of veiled threat that they'd get negative exposure, and I think otehrs are a little worried that if their copyrights are found to be distributed (with permission) the "wrong way" they might get in trouble.  I'm sure it's not the case, and that they feel as I do about fan work, but might want to check in with them personally just to cover bases.

Do you know if you guys are being given a grace period and treated as though you had in fact been using the OGL, or given a period to stop distribution and GET in compliance with the OGL?


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 13, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> Ok, so evidently WOTC has asked PCGen folks not to distribute WOTC IP material.
> 
> Will WOTC have a double standard?  Will WOTC allow Fluid to distribute IP material?  Will WOTC allow other people to post splatbook material for e-tools on there websites?*



If WotC have a double standard it has been that way since the publishing of _Third Edition Player's Handbook._

There is no double standard. WotC went out to contract Fluid to develop the software, and WotC would be in charge of publishing (i.e, make copies of the master) and distributing the wares under their label. They can do that.

The developers of PCGen (man, I have got to call them by their organization/company name, profit or non-profit) develop the program on their own, it was a fan-based program at first but then it expanded to include more material and data from other _d20_ sources. It got to the point where it has its own community of fans. Even FORMER Wizards employees practically endorse it.

If Fluid wants to do an expansion based on Wizards' IP material, they have to get the green light from Wizards. If anything, Wizards should let them.


----------



## Leopold (Aug 13, 2002)

Twin Rose said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> By the way, it was great to meet you at the Con, Leo, and put a face to the name and shake your hand.  I think what you guys do is great, if a hard task.  Despite what people seem to get stuck in their head, CS is a lot more than a character generator.  If it was JUST that, our sales would not be up and we'd not be going to distribution after E-Tools came out.  We aren't in competition
> *




You too TR! Always nice to meet people to talk about things. Now I can put a name to the face!



> But, I think some of the publishers got the "impression" that the way you guys said "We'll post the names of anyone not wanting us to use their stuff" was some sort of veiled threat that they'd get negative exposure, and I think otehrs are a little worried that if their copyrights are found to be distributed (with permission) the "wrong way" they might get in trouble.  I'm sure it's not the case, and that they feel as I do about fan work, but might want to check in with them personally just to cover bases.




we said that? Woahhh! When? I missed that part of the conversation!




> Do you know if you guys are being given a grace period and treated as though you had in fact been using the OGL, or given a period to stop distribution and GET in compliance with the OGL?




 I belive bryan and mynex are working on that as we speak. They will be issuing a press release in a few days to explain more. All I know is that we are working toward OGL (which we were doing anyway) and just had to remove the NON-SRD stuff.


----------



## Leopold (Aug 13, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> The developers of PCGen (man, I have got to call them by their organization/company name, profit or non-profit) develop the program on their own, it was a fan-based program at first but then it expanded to include more material and data from other _d20_ sources. It got to the point where it has its own community of fans. Even FORMER Wizards employees practically endorse it.





whats wrong with "Developers of PCGen"? Sounds good to me! Even "PCGen team" works! as long as you don't say it without stating there is more than one person, we are all happy. 

And which former WOTC employees love it? I'd LOVE to get them on record!


----------



## gariig (Aug 13, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> Will WOTC have a double standard?  Will WOTC allow Fluid to distribute IP material?  Will WOTC allow other people to post splatbook material for e-tools on there websites?
> *




I believe they will.  Even if the E-tools community inputs non-SRD materail and distrubutes the data it makes E-tools that much more attractive and will help sell more E-tools.  However, having a FREE Character Generator with all that material doesn't sell more E-tools it will sell less more than likely.  Also, I think once everyone said "E-tools sucks use PCGen" and said that because it supported more than the Core Rules, WoTC realized they are in a losing battle with a FREE competitive product.  Yes, PCGen people say they aren't in competition with E-tools, but E-tools is in competition with PCGen.

Quite honestly, no D&D program is worth a snippet of code without using the non-SRD stuff because it's the most abundant used rules after the Core.  Most people in another thread said they use the other Splatbooks as extra material.

So, will WoTC turn a blind eye to people having their IP in E-tools, you bet it will especially if it sells more E-tools.

Gariig


----------



## smetzger (Aug 13, 2002)

Ranger REG said:
			
		

> *
> If Fluid wants to do an expansion based on Wizards' IP material, they have to get the green light from Wizards. If anything, Wizards should let them. *




They are already doing this by providing a place for users to upload files.

I was just wondering how WOTC would react if splatbook files become prolific (which I think they will) and a 3rd party decideds to use the same format that e-tools uses (which I think will happen).

In effect WOTC will have created a defacto standard for exchanging information.  Just depends how usable the information is in the datafiles and if e-tools will be able to ignore extensions.


----------



## Mynex (Aug 13, 2002)

> But, I think some of the publishers got the "impression" that the way you guys said "We'll post the names of anyone not wanting us to use their stuff" was some sort of veiled threat that they'd get negative exposure, and I think otehrs are a little worried that if their copyrights are found to be distributed (with permission) the "wrong way" they might get in trouble.  I'm sure it's not the case, and that they feel as I do about fan work, but might want to check in with them personally just to cover bases.




1) No one ever said any such thing, we said if any publisher we contacted said no, then we would have no problems with that, or if we had the files yank them immediately... I've stated that so many times I can type it in my sleep.

2) Not one publisher said anyting about concern or worry about their material being used in PCGen.  And I asked.

To be fair, because it is a fan based workforce, there has been a overzealousnees on occaission that's had to be weeded out... and with our popularity growing, we've instituted some new data controls...  They have to pass numerous test as well as being send to the publisher for approval before they will get into the distribution.

More to come in the next few days.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 14, 2002)

*chuckles*

Merton Monk must now be so extremely frustrated...

*grins evily*


----------



## drothgery (Aug 14, 2002)

Nathanael said:
			
		

> *Considering the  lack of ETools availability around the US, and the limited scope of that programme, I highly doubt its users outnumber PCGen users. Especially since Mac users can use PCGen without PC Emulators.
> *




You do realize that non-Windows users are pretty meaningless when it comes to market share of desktop-oriented products, right? Unless you're in a category of software that has an extremely high percentage of non-Windows users, if product A has 10% of the Windows market and product B has 100% of the non-Windows market, product A has more than twice as many users as product B.


----------



## Lily Inverse (Aug 14, 2002)

RPG players are one heck of an eclectic group, though.  I'm willing to bet that a much higher percentage of gamers are mac-owners than the general population.  As are Linux-types and others who use so-called "secondary OSes."  The fact that PCGen caters to these groups while E-Tools only goes to the Windows people (who are still the majority of the market) makes PCGen a clear winner in this regard.  Why?

Well, one reason is that one key use of a character generator is the electronic exchange of information.  If ONE gamer in a group uses a Mac, Linux, BSD, or whatever, the entire group is forced to use PCGen to exchange data natively.  That will lead the group to trying PCGen, which, if it has native support for their product, they will likely stick to rather than retooling E-Tools . . . .


----------



## Ranger REG (Aug 14, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> They are already doing this by providing a place for users to upload files.*



I know. I mean that's the reason why we (GMs and players) want this kind of software to do for us. But we also have lazy GM's who would rather have someone else to do the inputting for them.


----------



## Twin Rose (Aug 14, 2002)

The entire issue is a HOTBED of activity right now, because already peoples OGC and IP - even when not WOTC related - is finding its way into distribution with E-Tools.  The data files are out there, suddenly the issues start to change shape.

The PCGen crew are certainly at the forefront of the "lets watch them" list - it's been stated publically that GPL and OGL are completely non-compatible.  This presents problems for everyone involved, and I hope they can be worked out.

I'm certainly not one of the three that went out, and I'll know more later this week as I drag myself in there and see what can be worked out legally.


----------



## Maggan (Aug 14, 2002)

*Happy Mac-owner*

As a Mac-user I'm happy to see the Mac being used as an argument for the higher adoption of PCGen vs the adoption of eTools.

It's really an alien feeling... but somehow it feels good. 

M.


----------



## Twin Rose (Aug 14, 2002)

*Re: Happy Mac-owner*



			
				Maggan said:
			
		

> *As a Mac-user I'm happy to see the Mac being used as an argument for the higher adoption of PCGen vs the adoption of eTools.
> *




Don't fear   We had a huge number of people talk to us at GenCon about a Mac Release of Campaign Suite.  More than we had thought we would, in fact.  It's causing us to look into a compiler that will be compatible with our code and functionality and work for Mac.  I believe there may be a trend towards this for gamer materials in the future if, indeed, the numbers are as high as we are looking at.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 14, 2002)

Lily Inverse said:
			
		

> *Well, one reason is that one key use of a character generator is the electronic exchange of information.  If ONE gamer in a group uses a Mac, Linux, BSD, or whatever, the entire group is forced to use PCGen to exchange data natively.  That will lead the group to trying PCGen, which, if it has native support for their product, they will likely stick to rather than retooling E-Tools . . . . *




Nothing + Nothing + Nothing (Still) = Nothing

I think that is the idea some other posters are trying to get acrossed.

Also your last statement works both ways, people with eTools can lead their group to adopt it.


----------



## DM (Aug 14, 2002)

*Three companies?*

Has PcGen actually received anything “official” yet, i.e. a letter or other document?  Are the other 2 companies getting a cease and desist orders or just a slap on the wrist like PcGen has apparently received?  If this rumor is true, I’d think that an “official” contact would have gone out by know to the parties in question.  Is there any other source to the validity of this situation other than a post on a message board?  

I guess we’ll (eventually) find out, one way or another.


----------



## Leopold (Aug 14, 2002)

*Re: Three companies?*



			
				DM said:
			
		

> *Has PcGen actually received anything “official” yet, i.e. a letter or other document?  Are the other 2 companies getting a cease and desist orders or just a slap on the wrist like PcGen has apparently received?  If this rumor is true, I’d think that an “official” contact would have gone out by know to the parties in question.  Is there any other source to the validity of this situation other than a post on a message board?
> 
> I guess we’ll (eventually) find out, one way or another. *




as has been said before no 'official' C&D has been issued to the PCGen project.


----------



## Twin Rose (Aug 14, 2002)

*Re: Three companies?*



			
				DM said:
			
		

> *Has PcGen actually received anything “official” yet, i.e. a letter or other document?  Are the other 2 companies getting a cease and desist orders or just a slap on the wrist like PcGen has apparently received?  If this rumor is true, I’d think that an “official” contact would have gone out by know to the parties in question.  Is there any other source to the validity of this situation other than a post on a message board?
> *




A representative from Wizard's of the Coast wanted a chance to go and speak with the folks at PCGen personally, because he had no ill will against them.  That chance came at GenCon, because they were all there.  The other 2 companies were not there, so didn't get this opportunity.   I felt this was an amazing show of good faith on the part of Wizards of the Coast to approach them personally, to say, "This is what will happen if you don't do X."  and to give them a 30 day grace period as though they had been following the OGL from the start - which the folks at PCGen had thought in a previous thread on this board that they did not have to do.

It is encouraging to me that the larger companies will do things like this, and I've learned personally that if you are willing to work with WOTC, they are willing to work with you.  True, it takes some time for them to notice you, but once they do they aren't going to throw a hammer at you.


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 14, 2002)

*Woo-hoo*

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen/message/43136


> Hey all,
> 
> This is an update, expect a full blown Press Release tonight/tomorrow sometime...
> 
> ...


----------



## Knightcrawler (Aug 14, 2002)

*PCGen vs. E-Tools*

Okay, basically it boils down to everyone comparing PCGen with E-Tools.  Personally I think that they each target slightly different segments of the market.

E-Tools has the slick interface and all the bells and wistles that a low end computer users is looking for.  It provides a starting framework and complete documentation of said framework.

PCGen is tailored more to people that are a little more computer savy.  Also it only provides the bases facts, no a complete description or explanation of a feat, skill, item, etc.  The PCGen Team wants to make sure that the PCGen data files are NOT a replacement for any book.

I myself have coded several of the sources for PCGen.  While its easy to get into initially it is very time consuming and can be very aggravating.  We are not out to create competition for E-Tools.  I would be immensly happy if E-Tools was a huge success.

As to how good or bad E-Tools is I cannot say anything.  I won't get my copy of it until this weekend.  But even then I will try to be constructive in my criticism.  I've played D&D for nearly 20 years now, all three editions.  I want to see WotC succeed.

With the lines of communication open now between WotC and PCGen it means a better future for PCGen not the death of it.  I think it is in WotC interest to see PCGen continue.  It makes people want to buy more books not less of them.

Knightcrawler
-PCGen LST Monkey
-MM Race Munchkin


----------



## Leopold (Aug 14, 2002)

*minor update from mynex..pass the word along.*

This is an update, expect a full blown Press Release 
tonight/tomorrow sometime...

I _just_ got off the phone with Anthony Valterra (and that's the 
correct spelling of his name btw), and here's the short and sweet...

Code Wise: All random functiond (Dice Rolling) is 
considered 'insteractive' and to be D20 licensed that can't be, but 
if it's just OGL compliancy then we can. ALL references to 
mechanics MUST be removed from Code to be compliant, so they go into 
the list files, which IS acceptable AND compliant. The code itself 
is merely a reader/interpreter of what it finds in the list files, 
so no hard coding of anything in the code itself. What does this 
mean? Well the Stats and Saves are FINALLY going to be fully in the 
list files so that people can not only change the names and 
add/remove stats, but you will be able to define EXACTLY what they 
each do. COMPLETE and TOTAL customization of stats! YAY! (This will 
also make it a LOT easier to work on non-D20 materials as well, THAT 
is definately a bonus as we DID have multiple conversations with non-
D20 publishers at GenCon asking about PCGen Support!!!!)

List Wise: A number of changes to make them easier to read, 
understand, convert to XML, etc will be done. More tags added, 
cleaner look and feel over all.

As for what's missing? ALL the NON-SRD Wizards Material is gone. 
It will stay gone until/if we get permission to re-include it. We 
are looking at options, and yes, discussing this with Wizards to see 
how we can do so. And in regards to that, Wizards has been VERY 
cool and EASY to deal with about this, especially Anthony Valterra, 
the man sought US out to talk to us when he didn't need to.

That's the short and skinny... expect the <WWF Announcer Voice> 
OFFICIAL PCGEN & WIZARDS OF THE COAST PRESS RELEASE SOON!!! </WWF 
Announcer Voice>.

Mynex

- #1 Evil Assistant to the PCGen Code Monkeys
- List files & Documentation Silverback
- RPG Reviews Editor & Reviewer


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Three companies?*



			
				Twin Rose said:
			
		

> *<snip> I felt this was an amazing show of good faith on the part of Wizards of the Coast to approach them personally, to say, "This is what will happen if you don't do X."  and to give them a 30 day grace period as though they had been following the OGL from the start - which the folks at PCGen had thought in a previous thread on this board that they did not have to do.
> *




No offense Twin, but whether or not they HAVE to follow the OGL is debateble, only way to set things straight is to go to court. The problem is that in the US right and wrong are decided by who has the most money, and the folks over at PcGen are piss poor in comperison to WotC. In other words they have no other option than accept every which way the wind blows...



			
				Twin Rose said:
			
		

> It is encouraging to me that the larger companies will do things like this, <snip>[/B]




Again no offense, but to "do things like this" is a nessecity for WotC. You might not have noticed but WotC is currently nothing more than a house of cards that's trying to stay in the eye of the storm. On one side there's a lot of scrunity from big daddy Hasbro lately about how WotC runs it's business (anyone remember th bean pushers?). Then we have the global economic slump that's affecting everyone. And of course we have a fan base that's unpredictable at best. If WotC pulls a Homer in front of BD Hasbro they are pretty screwd, and pissing of a big piece of revenue is not the way to go about business.

Some might say (and rightly so) that the online community is very small compared to the overall D&D community. Maybe 5% of the entire customer base, but we are responsible for more than 10% of the revenue generated (a 10% drop in sales is going to get the attention of BD Hasbro). Also online fans are the people that spread the game and the people that are the links to the rest of the community (how many on here are just one of a group, the rest of the group often isn't online?).

Now i really dig the guys and girls over at WotC that are gamers at heart, but i have this little problem with the bean pushers so to speak...


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: minor update from mynex..pass the word along.*



			
				Leopold said:
			
		

> *Code Wise: All random functiond (Dice Rolling) is
> considered 'insteractive' and to be D20 licensed that can't be, but
> if it's just OGL compliancy then we can. ALL references to
> mechanics MUST be removed from Code to be compliant, so they go into
> ...




Ok, if it can't be interactive, how does moving it out of the Java code and putting it into lst or xml "code" make it acceptable? Am I splitting hairs or missing something?



> *
> cool and EASY to deal with about this, especially Anthony Valterra,
> the man sought US out to talk to us when he didn't need to.
> *




Beware wolves in sheep's clothing, or is it beware those bearing gifts? One of them is apprioprate here


----------



## smetzger (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: minor update from mynex..pass the word along.*



			
				Leopold said:
			
		

> * Code Wise: All random functiond (Dice Rolling) is
> considered 'insteractive' and to be D20 licensed that can't be, but
> if it's just OGL compliancy then we can.  *




Thats a much more restrictive definition than the d20 license:


> ·	"Interactive Game": means a piece of computer gaming software that is designed to accept inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the results of those inputs to the users.




So, I don't believe that PCGen has ever "resolved the success or failure" of an input.  Rolling attributes is hardly a success or a failure.

However, one thing that is not in the SRD that is kind of necessary for a character generation program is Table 3-2 on p.22 of the PHB.  Shows, XP, max class and cross class skill points (these may be somewhere else), when feats are rewarded, and when ability score increases.  You can't use that information in an OGL product or a d20 product.

As I see it PCGen can go a couple of routes.
1) Thumb their nose at WOTC and all d20 companies and continue on.  They may not even be breaking any laws by doing this since game mechanics are not copyrightable.
2) Get permission from every copyright holder before using their material.
3) Separate everything into data or code.  Release the data as d20 or OGL and release the program under whatever license they want to.


----------



## Twin Rose (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Three companies?*



			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No offense Twin, but whether or not they HAVE to follow the OGL is debateble, only way to set things straight is to go to court. The problem is that in the US right and wrong are decided by who has the most money, and the folks over at PcGen are piss poor in comperison to WotC. In other words they have no other option than accept every which way the wind blows...
> *




No, it's not debatable.  If someone releases their content under the Open Gaming License, they have a reasonable belief that it is safeguarded by the Open Gaming License.  The legality is ther,e and we've all been dealing with WOTC enough lately to know that it is, and aren't going to bother fighting about it.




> *
> Again no offense, but to "do things like this" is a nessecity for WotC.*




Previous posts on this board suggested that PCGen didn't follow the Open Gaming License.  They are now attempting to do so.  The OGL protects the licensor as well as the licensee from certain things, and it is a wonderful tool for everyone involved.  "Big money" has nothing to do with it.  I think the PCGen folks would readily agree that the 30 day breach/cure period is much preferable to getting drug into court.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Three companies?*



			
				Twin Rose said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No, it's not debatable.  If someone releases their content under the Open Gaming License, they have a reasonable belief that it is safeguarded by the Open Gaming License.  The legality is ther,e and we've all been dealing with WOTC enough lately to know that it is, and aren't going to bother fighting about it.*




Of course if you release under OGL or d20 you have to follow the license.  He was not saying that.  He is saying that it is debatable if you have to use the OGL.  Since game mechanics are not copyrightable it is certainly up in the air about if you can develop D&D software (or other D&D material for that matter) without using the d20 license or OGL.  The record companies litigation against Napster was much more clear cut than this, and look how long it took, how much money the record companies used up, and how ultimately ineffective that was.  Using d20 or OGL gives you a reasonable assurance from WOTC that they will not sue you.   Just because you do not use the OGL or d20 doesn't mean that you are breaking the law.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 15, 2002)

Thanks Smetzer, that's exactly what i meant.


----------



## Leopold (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: minor update from mynex..pass the word along.*



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> However, one thing that is not in the SRD that is kind of necessary for a character generation program is Table 3-2 on p.22 of the PHB.  Shows, XP, max class and cross class skill points (these may be somewhere else), when feats are rewarded, and when ability score increases.  You can't use that information in an OGL product or a d20 product.





tables are copyrighted, formulas are not. 



> As I see it PCGen can go a couple of routes.
> 1) Thumb their nose at WOTC and all d20 companies and continue on.  They may not even be breaking any laws by doing this since game mechanics are not copyrightable.
> 2) Get permission from every copyright holder before using their material.
> 3) Separate everything into data or code.  Release the data as d20 or OGL and release the program under whatever license they want to.





2 and 3 have been done since day one. Doing 1 will bring heat on not only the PCGen project but on anyone that does ANY software related to WOTC in the future. For the future of PCGen we will continue to do 2 and 3 which has been an established practice.


----------



## Twin Rose (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Three companies?*



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Of course if you release under OGL or d20 you have to follow the license.  He was not saying that.  He is saying that it is debatable if you have to use the OGL.  Since game mechanics are not copyrightable it is certainly up in the air about if you can develop D&D software (or other D&D material for that matter) without using the d20 license or OGL.  The record companies litigation against Napster was much more clear cut than this, and look how long it took, how much money the record companies used up, and how ultimately ineffective that was.  Using d20 or OGL gives you a reasonable assurance from WOTC that they will not sue you.   Just because you do not use the OGL or d20 doesn't mean that you are breaking the law. *




If there was any debate to the matter, this thread wouldn't even be here.  Why?   Because they were told that even though they thought they weren't under the OGL, they had in fact accepted the terms by using Open Content.  Open Content is NOT Public Domain - you can't use it without following the license.

It worked out for the guys, too, sincle they were given a thirty day cure period that they might not have been granted otherwise.


----------



## Zulkir (Aug 15, 2002)

Nathanael said:
			
		

> *I think it's about time that WOTC/HASBRO sold D&D to somebody who cares about the product, won't fire off the designers and put creative decisions in the hands of business managers, and who can see profit as meaning 'any amount left over after costs have been subtracted' as opposed to 'any amount, after cost, that rivals the GNP of a third world nation which ensures the executives a new 100 foot boat and house in Malibu.' *




Its characterizations of me, like this, that just make my day.

AV


----------



## Knightcrawler (Aug 15, 2002)

*PCGEn and WotC*

Sorry about that characterization Anthony.  Some people have gotten carried away before they know all the facts.  I am grateful that WotC is working with PCGen.

Its just that many of the rabid fans remember the old days of TSR were it seemed that it was run for and by gamers.  Of course thats also why they almost went under and were bought.  A little more business sense brought into the mix allowed our beloved game to grow and survive.

The generalizations that these decisions are being made by "bankers" and "penny pinching businessmen" do nothing but impede the lines of communication.

Not all of us think your a money grubbing souless monster.

Knightcrawler
PCGen LST Monkey


----------



## Knightcrawler (Aug 15, 2002)

*Anthony, Question on PCGen*

Anthony, do you have any information that you can part with about the on going talks between PCGen and WotC.  It would be interesting to get some reports from the WotC side of things.

Knightcrawler
PCGen LST Monkey


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 15, 2002)

It wasn't pointed at any one person in particular, but since you're feeling singled out, answer this:

What is WOTC doing to discourage this image?

...Planning to lay off more design employees and give their creative duties to executives? 

....Planning to cut a few more lines that customers have invested in, but not enough for 'corporate sized profit margins?'

In the present reality of top heavy corporate execs fattening themselves at the expense of employees, customers and the economy, that's not an unreasonbable question.

Hey, you can prove me wrong right here. Promise the people who bought ETools that it won't be cancelled in the next 90 days and will get full support to fully implement the rules, including easy and complete class implementation and add ons for all of the supplements. I know you can't do that. Not that you personally won't, but that you're bosses won't allow it as it would mean that they might actually have to do what they say they will for once...


----------



## Nathanael (Aug 15, 2002)

And Knightcrawler, TSR didn't go under because of some 'gamers for gamers' mentality. Exactly the opposite. But I'm not going to explain that here. There's plenty of info on that almost anywhere you care to look...


----------



## smetzger (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: minor update from mynex..pass the word along.*



			
				Leopold said:
			
		

> *
> 2 and 3 have been done since day one. Doing 1 will bring heat on not only the PCGen project but on anyone that does ANY software related to WOTC in the future. For the future of PCGen we will continue to do 2 and 3 which has been an established practice. *




Argh.... I am tired of you guys saying that you got everyones permission when you did not.  You did not get permission from the netBook copyright holders.  You may have gotten permission from the netBook of Feats publishing crew, however, they are not the copyright holders.  You in effect are trying to say that you did number 2 when in fact you did number 1.  I don't mind if you do number 1, just don't lie about it.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Three companies?*



			
				Twin Rose said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If there was any debate to the matter, this thread wouldn't even be here.  Why?   Because they were told that even though they thought they weren't under the OGL, they had in fact accepted the terms by using Open Content.  Open Content is NOT Public Domain - you can't use it without following the license.
> *




Wrong, you can use open content however you want to you just have to follow the copyright rules.  If you include the actual license then you must abide by the license.  For example, WOTC uses its SRD without following the license because they own the copyright.  e-tools is not a d20 or OGL product just because it uses OGC material, WOTC has given FLUID the right to use their copyrighted material.

WOTC gave them time not because they had to but because they chose to, and its probably alot easier to try and work with an amorphose not for profit product.


----------



## francom13 (Aug 15, 2002)

Hi smetzger,

What I think Leopold means to say is they went and got permission from all the distributers of said products included in PcGen except maybe WotC. WotC permission was fuzzy if I remember correctly.

My guess would be now they realize after talking WotC that they actually needed the copyright holder's permission not the distributer's. This would be why they removed all the lst files while they get things correctly approved.

-matt


----------



## Tharkun (Aug 15, 2002)

*When?*

When is the SRD going to be updated anyone have any actual facts (though I don't mind wild speculation either  )


----------



## Twin Rose (Aug 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Three companies?*



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wrong, you can use open content however you want to you just have to follow the copyright rules.  If you include the actual license then you must abide by the license.  For example, WOTC uses its SRD without following the license because they own the copyright.  e-tools is not a d20 or OGL product just because it uses OGC material, WOTC has given FLUID the right to use their copyrighted material.*




Read the license.  I wouldn't release Open Content and expect people to use it without following the license -a nd would be perterbed if someone did.




> _WOTC gave them time not because they had to but because they chose to, and its probably alot easier to try and work with an amorphose not for profit product. [/B]_



_

No, because some of the folks there were trying to help out and work with people.  If you guys don't agree with their choice in giving them a chance, great, but personally I feel glad to know that they did go above and beyond what was required of them._


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: minor update from mynex..pass the word along.*



			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> *Argh.... I am tired of you guys saying that you got everyones permission when you did not.  You did not get permission from the netBook copyright holders.  You may have gotten permission from the netBook of Feats publishing crew, however, they are not the copyright holders.  You in effect are trying to say that you did number 2 when in fact you did number 1.  I don't mind if you do number 1, just don't lie about it. *




Cheesus Smetz! Your still going on about it _"You lie dirty basterd, you lie!"_ is getting really old really fast. The Netbboks are perceived as legal enteties that can speak for the content they hold, when the PcGen folks asked if it was ok to use the Netbook material, the Netbook folks agreed. Pick your bone with the folks from the Netbook you worked on, they gave permissions that they (apperently) had  no right to give...

ps. Anthony Valterra is a very nice money grubbing souless monster. ;-)


----------



## Arknight (Aug 20, 2002)

*Thanks to Anthony Valterra & WoTC*

I just want to say that my impression of WOTC has raised several notches because of Mr. Valterra and his willingness to work with the PCGen folks to straighten out issues when he and the powers that be could have just said no and it it be at that.  He has taken that extra step that shows that they do care about the fans and the fan opinion.


----------

