# File type discrimination



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 18, 2002)

I have been bothered recently by what seems to me an unsupportable position by WotC to stamp out distribution of PCGen lst files while allowing the same information to be freely traded on the Internet in E-Tools formats. Maybe someone with a better understanding of the law can help me understand this.  This is exactly the same information but formatted in different file types.  An alternate example of this to me is if an author in order to protect his work from copyright infringement blocked free trading of his work as Word documents, but then at the same time encouraged the same people to freely trade the exact same work as a WordPerfect document.  By not only allowing others to freely swap his IP, but additionally actively encouraging it, I don’t see how he can then argue that the exact same info can’t treated the same way in a different format. The IP is EXACTLY the same. In order to claim rights to their IP don’t they need to actively defend it. By actively encouraging and supporting the free trade of this IP in any manner aren’t they giving up their rights to it?  Especially as long as the original authors are properly credited, I don’t understand why I can’t use this same information in a different file format. Another example of this would seem to me is if WotC said anyone could copy and reprint hardcopies of their books and then give them away for free, but only if they used the Times New Roman font but not any other font. 

Note: I am in no way officially or unofficially associated with PCGen in any way other than as a long time user of the program.


----------



## Davin (Aug 18, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *I have been bothered recently by what seems to me an unsupportable position by WotC to stamp out distribution of PCGen lst files while allowing the same information to be freely traded on the Internet in E-Tools formats.*



Calm yourself.  That's not what they're doing.  The PCGen lst files will be back and better than before and everything will be legal and on the up-and-up and there won't be anything to complain about.  Check out announcements from Mynex and company from a couple of days ago for details.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 18, 2002)

First off WotC are the copyright owners of D&D, thus what they do with it is entirely up to them, if they want us to make and use those files than they can. Second they have the ability to use OGL content without ristrictions. Third, they have never given the official word for us to do so, this is still not entirely legal.

Why no crackdown? Simple because that would wipe out the little support E-Tools has at the moment. And it has taken years before WotC suggested to the PcGen folks that they should remove non OGL material they did not have official permission for.


----------



## Luke (Aug 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Davin said:
			
		

> *That's not what they're doing...*




No. There is a genuine issue here.

PCGen are being restricted to only being allowed to distribute the WotC SRD content (no sword & fist, forgotten realms etc).

There's a long road ahead before they can *possibly* get permission to incorporate the Wizard's copyright IP for non-SRD material.

Essentially there is currently a prohibition on copyright material being distributed in PCGen format, whilst you can get the same material in E-Tools format from the "official" site.

Part of this material is in open XML format (made easier to work with in bulk by your program, Davin), where other software can import from it, whilst other information is held in proprietory format (.rac files and others), only readable by other E-Tools programs.

It should be noted, however, that Wizards own the IP to this copyright material, and are morally and legally within their rights to allow E-Tools proliferation of said material, effectively giving E-Tools a significant "competitive advantage" over PCGen and others. 

There is a moral and legal issue, however, if their official site ends up distributing closed content from other D20 publishers. I predict it won't be long before they have to enforce certain acceptability guidelines about what's allowed on their site. There will probably be a backlash where WotC are accused of "locking into" only their own material, although it's the most they can legally do (without permission). Just wait and see... "poor" old WotC always get slagged one way or another, no matter what they do. 

This places WotC in what "used to be" the PCGen situation. In the days when there was only PCGen, D20 publishers could find advantage in allowing PCGen permission to distribute their copyright material. Now, WotC would appear to offer a much stronger future marketing advantage from that perspective. Looks like PCGen have started a nice campaign at GenCon with getting D20 publishers on-side for future distribution (announcement pending), but if E-Tools survives it's launch, the effect may be a bit temporary.

By the way, has anyone tried decoding the .rac or .chr file formats? I'd be surprised if there weren't a few PCGen coders having a close look.  I had a quick look, and at the very least it seems the strings are in unicode format...
Davin??? Your helper is good, but it's incomplete... How about decoding those native formats for us?  If only I had that much time.

I like efforts by people like Charles Greathouse, to get things like standard statblock formats. I've already started changing my own formats to make E-Tools imports easier...


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Davin said:
			
		

> *
> Calm yourself.  That's not what they're doing.  The PCGen lst files will be back and better than before and everything will be legal and on the up-and-up and there won't be anything to complain about.  Check out announcements from Mynex and company from a couple of days ago for details. *




I have seen the anouncement and what it states is that when PCGen is OGL/d20 compliant, which will be soon, then WotC will listen to the request to make non-SRD material availible. They have made no statement that they will accept this request. I hope they will but there is not even a reassurance that they will look favorably upon it.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No. There is a genuine issue here.
> 
> ...




That is part of what I was talking about, although it is more than the official site as people here and elsewhere are trading this information.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *Part of this material is in open XML format (made easier to work with in bulk by your program, Davin), where other software can import from it, whilst other information is held in proprietory format (.rac files and others), only readable by other E-Tools programs. *




This is one of the things I am talking about. What is the legal difference between file types? If people are encouraged to trade the underling IP what difference does the wrapper make? And Davin’s program program does more than allow for the trading of monster and race proprietary formats, it allows the trading of all db information and its use has been encouraged by all who support the program.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *It should be noted, however, that Wizards own the IP to this copyright material, and are morally and legally within their rights to allow E-Tools proliferation of said material, effectively giving E-Tools a significant "competitive advantage" over PCGen and others. *




Yes WotC does own the IP can use it as it sees fit.  I would have no problem if they made this information available officially at their site. I am not arguing about giving their product a competitive advantage in this manner, in fact if they would officially release this info I would be pleased. What they are doing however is not officially releasing it but encouraging others to input the data themselves and then trade it on the Internet. By doing this they are saying that they are giving up control of the distribution of the information. This goes to my original example of it is OK to reprint and distribute the book, but only if the font is Times New Roman.



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *There is a moral and legal issue, however, if their official site ends up distributing closed content from other D20 publishers. I predict it won't be long before they have to enforce certain acceptability guidelines about what's allowed on their site. There will probably be a backlash where WotC are accused of "locking into" only their own material, although it's the most they can legally do (without permission). Just wait and see... "poor" old WotC always get slagged one way or another, no matter what they do.
> 
> This places WotC in what "used to be" the PCGen situation. In the days when there was only PCGen, D20 publishers could find advantage in allowing PCGen permission to distribute their copyright material. Now, WotC would appear to offer a much stronger future marketing advantage from that perspective. Looks like PCGen have started a nice campaign at GenCon with getting D20 publishers on-side for future distribution (announcement pending), but if E-Tools survives it's launch, the effect may be a bit temporary. *




I had not even considered this, but you bring up a good point. I hope that WotC is at least as thorough as PCGen in acquiring permission to distribute third party material. Until such permissions are granted however it is just as illegal for WotC to allow posting of non-WotC material as it is for PCGen to allow distribution of WotC non-SRD material. Until e-tools allows for the creation of PrCs I don’t foresee them becoming the standard. It was not until IE was able to match Netscape functionality that they won the browser war. 



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *By the way, has anyone tried decoding the .rac or .chr file formats? I'd be surprised if there weren't a few PCGen coders having a close look.  I had a quick look, and at the very least it seems the strings are in unicode format...
> Davin??? Your helper is good, but it's incomplete... How about decoding those native formats for us?  If only I had that much time.
> 
> I like efforts by people like Charles Greathouse, to get things like standard statblock formats. I've already started changing my own formats to make E-Tools imports easier... *




As a note to anyone who is trying to decode .rac, .chr, .dll, or .exe portions of the program. This directly violates the license for the program.  As the license states “You may not: ...; (2) modify or prepare derivative works of the Software; ...; (4) design or distribute unauthorized levels; or (5) reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software.” If WotC is revoking this portion of the license than great, but until this happens than all third party attempts to add functionality are illegal.  If Davin has official permission from Fluid and WotC great, but I have seen nothing stating that this is the case.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Aug 18, 2002)

words, lots of words


----------



## Luke (Aug 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> As a note to anyone who is trying to decode .rac, .chr, .dll, or .exe portions of the program. This directly violates the license for the program.  As the license states “You may not: ...; (2) modify or prepare derivative works of the Software; ...; (4) design or distribute unauthorized levels; or (5) reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software.” *




There's no problem here.
The closest it gets to being a problem for decoding .rac or .chr files is if you misinterpret the datafiles as being software.

Apart from that, if people distribute files on the internet, and you download and decode them, that's fine. There's nothing so say that you own a copy of E-Tools, and agreed to the licence contained therein.

Is this all there is in the license with E-Tools? I haven't yet had the opportunity of review. Also, what are "unauthorized levels"?

In fact (*and this one's a real eye opener*), these files are being distributed without a mention of authorship, copyright notice, or any license agreement.
It's an amazing little fact. When WotC started the OGL/D20 licenses, they pointed out that if you even referred to SRD information in an e-mail, technically you should include a copy of the license - but they weren't going to be that draconian (couldn't help myself ).
There are essentially supposed to be only 2 forms of distributing D&D/D20 material. Either it's from WotC, in which case it always has clear author/ownership and copyright markings, or it's from D20/OGL publishers, in which case it must clearly display the WotC license (OGL or D20) under which it's released.

So, what they're actually allowing (no wait, encouraging), is the proliferation of their IP without any mark of ownership or copyright. Hello?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *
> So, what they're actually allowing (no wait, encouraging), is the proliferation of their IP without any mark of ownership or copyright. Hello? *




Thats what it seems like to me. So should it matter then if this same IP is reformated into a .lst file.


----------



## Davin (Aug 18, 2002)

Luke said:
			
		

> No. There is a genuine issue here.



My apologies for mis-interpreting his complaint.  I thought he was complaining about their refusing to allow *any* WotC information in lst files.  Still, it sounds to me like PCGen is going to get access to "most" information along the way somewhere -- I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it goes.


> Essentially there is currently a prohibition on copyright material being distributed in PCGen format, whilst you can get the same material in E-Tools format from the "official" site.



Well, I haven't seen anywhere that WotC was officially pronouncing that stuff as legal.  I just haven't seen anywhere they were explicitly prohibited.  And of course PCGen itself enjoyed this situation for many months before being asked to conform to the rules.  I don't see how this is much different, even treating them as "equal" when they aren't quite IP-wise.

And just for the record (in case there are any lawyers watching), I've mentioned in a number of posts that I think it's a violation of copyright to be republishing stuff out of the official books without permission and I don't recommend or condone it (despite having written the program that permits it).


> Davin??? Your helper is good, but it's incomplete... How about decoding those native formats for us?  If only I had that much time.



Actually, I'd considered writing some kind of low-level editor for that but it's waaaay on down the line of importance, and the problem may solve itself before I get there.  <innocent  look>


----------



## Davin (Aug 18, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> That is part of what I was talking about, although it is more than the official site as people here and elsewhere are trading this information.



I think it's more in the not-yet-disallowed state.  We'll have to see what happens in the future.


> What is the legal difference between file types?



Unfortunately, I couldn't even begin to guess the legal ramifications here, so I'm going to leave that to someone with plenty of ranks in Profession(Lawyer).


----------



## smetzger (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> As a note to anyone who is trying to decode .rac, .chr, .dll, or .exe portions of the program. This directly violates the license for the program.  As the license states ?You may not: ...; (2) modify or prepare derivative works of the Software; ...; (4) design or distribute unauthorized levels; or (5) reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software.?  *




Reverse engineering has been consistantly upheld in courts as being legal.  Of course no other industry has been able to get a law passed that allowed something that was tangibly purchased to be construed as a license to use the product instead of an outright possession.  Suffice it to say it would be very difficult for Fluid/WOTC to prosecute a reverse engineer case.


----------



## Archimedes (Aug 19, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *In order to claim rights to their IP don’t they need to actively defend it. *




You can't lose a copyright by neglecting to defend it.  Trademarks are what you have to actively defend.  Most of what we're talking about here are copyright issues, but...

My understanding of this issue is that the PCGen creators want their program to become D20 complient and use the D20 logo.  Since D20 is an actual trademark, I can understand why the PCGen crowd wants to toe the line.

Other than that, this is a tempest in a teapot.  PCGen is Open Source.  If a group of users gets really unhappy with the way things are going they can create their own list files or even fork the program.


Sam


----------



## Christian (Aug 19, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *Reverse engineering has been consistantly upheld in courts as being legal.  Of course no other industry has been able to get a law passed that allowed something that was tangibly purchased to be construed as a license to use the product instead of an outright possession.  Suffice it to say it would be very difficult for Fluid/WOTC to prosecute a reverse engineer case. *




That's backwards, smetzger. It's because reverse engineering was determined to be legal that the prohibition was added to the EULAs. Since there's nothing in the law inherently protecting the designers from reverse-engineers, they add language prohibiting it into the contract. When you click 'I agree' on the install after pretending to read the license agreement, you have entered into a contract with the software publisher not to reverse-engineer the program. So if you do that any, you're in violation of that contract. In theory, that is-I don't know how seriously this has been tested.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Archimedes said:
			
		

> *You can't lose a copyright by neglecting to defend it.  Trademarks are what you have to actively defend.  Most of what we're talking about here are copyright issues, but...*




The issue I am looking at is whether by encouraging the free trading of IP in the form of e-tools files, WotC is is forefitting the right to complain if that same material is then traded in a different format. Yes this is a copyright issue, but I am still hoping to get an answer.



			
				Archimedes said:
			
		

> *My understanding of this issue is that the PCGen creators want their program to become D20 complient and use the D20 logo.  Since D20 is an actual trademark, I can understand why the PCGen crowd wants to toe the line.*




Yes they wish to be compliant so that there can be no legal issue with thier use of SRD material as well as other OGL material that they have recieved permission to distribute. Until PCGen is OGL/d20 compliant they risk being shutdown. My question is for when PCGen is compliant whether or not users will be able to freely trade the non-SRD material that WotC is now making freely availible in a different file format. While I do not ever expect PCGen to officialy distribute non-SRD material without proper legal permission, currently This board and other sites actively shut down the distribution of the non-SRD lst files that are availible while allowing the distribution of the same material in e-tools format.



			
				Archimedes said:
			
		

> *Other than that, this is a tempest in a teapot.  PCGen is Open Source.  If a group of users gets really unhappy with the way things are going they can create their own list files or even fork the program.
> *




Yes, absolutely (except the teapot part). In fact there is not even a question of whether a user can input the material themselves. The problem comes for people like myself and others who do not have the time and/or ability to make the changes ourselves, but would still like to have access to this information in a character generator program.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *As a note to anyone who is trying to decode .rac, .chr, .dll, or .exe portions of the program. This directly violates the license for the program.  As the license states “You may not: ...; (2) modify or prepare derivative works of the Software; ...; (4) design or distribute unauthorized levels; or (5) reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Software.” If WotC is revoking this portion of the license than great, but until this happens than all third party attempts to add functionality are illegal.  If Davin has official permission from Fluid and WotC great, but I have seen nothing stating that this is the case. *




This may and may not be an issue (IANAL), but what about those who haven't bought e-Tools and thus haven't agreed to those terms?


----------



## CRGreathouse (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				Luke said:
			
		

> *I like efforts by people like Charles Greathouse, to get things like standard statblock formats. I've already started changing my own formats to make E-Tools imports easier... *




Thanks, Luke.

On the same subject, I have something important to say: It's not the format that's important, but the universality.  If everyone started to use a single format, I'd be more than happy to use it, even if it wasn't the format I worked on making.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: File type discrimination*



			
				CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This may and may not be an issue (IANAL), but what about those who haven't bought e-Tools and thus haven't agreed to those terms? *




I think you are correct here, but tell me who is doing this that doesn't own the program? Except of course this only backs up the first point that by making these files freely availible that if someone wanted to extract this information for inclusion in a different format then WotC would not realy have a say in the matter as the licence for the program would not apply, the material is not labeled as being copyrighted material of WotC, and it is being freely traded with WotC's full knowlege.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 19, 2002)

There is no issue. WoTC owns the IP, they can do with it as they please.

The real facts are that pcgen have been commercially exploiting all sorts of IP for the past two years with no say so from the owners. The hoped to exist under the blind eye of a large corp and succeeded, until now.

This is so much like a criminal robbing your home, and then falling on your door mat and then suing you. Yeah pcgen lost "their" data, they should have never had that data. If you became dependant on pcgen and dependent on *them* violating copyright, then you have only yourself and pcgen to blame. WoTC owns the material, they sell you that material in books. That is their buisness.
What I find funny are group of people that somehow manage to ignore common sense and feel they have a right to pirate material all in the name of Open Source. Which gives open source a bad name and steps all over other legitimate "groups". How about this open source is a portal "copyright violaters software", which leads to full fledged pirating.



Whining about how WoTC chooses to control their property is like whining to your neighbor to mow his lawn with the grain.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 19, 2002)

> The real facts are that pcgen have been commercially exploiting all sorts of IP for the past two years with no say so from the owners. The hoped to exist under the blind eye of a large corp and succeeded, until now.




For some reason you have better eyesight than me, where exactly was pcgen 'exploiting' things commercially?

Also, the folks here are probablt digging around for a way to exploit the fact that WotC is not cracking down on E-Tool files. If they allow it for one format then it's not difficult to sway the 'courts' to allow it for all...


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 19, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *There is no issue. WoTC owns the IP, they can do with it as they please.*




You are correct, and what they are choosing to do with it right now is allowing it to be freely distributed on the Internet. And once the cat is out of the bag...



			
				Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *The real facts are that pcgen have been commercially exploiting all sorts of IP for the past two years with no say so from the owners. The hoped to exist under the blind eye of a large corp and succeeded, until now.*




PCGen for at least a very long time has made sure that they have permission for all thier material. With respect to the non-SRD WotC material they had unofficial permission from Ryan Dancey and continued after that to try to get official permission. It was only at GenCon that they finally had official talks and are now working to meet all the requirements that were laid out.



			
				Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *This is so much like a criminal robbing your home, and then falling on your door mat and then suing you. Yeah pcgen lost "their" data, they should have never had that data. If you became dependant on pcgen and dependent on *them* violating copyright, then you have only yourself and pcgen to blame. WoTC owns the material, they sell you that material in books. That is their buisness.*




By the way criminals have successfuly sued homeowner they were robbing for negligence, but that is irrelevant. In all the versions of PCGen I have used they have always had some kind of permission for the material. In addition I have never used a source I don't already own the book for. I am not stealing any of this information, I already own it. I am mearly saving myself the effort of typing it in myself, which if I did nobody could possible complain would be illeagal.



			
				Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *What I find funny are group of people that somehow manage to ignore common sense and feel they have a right to pirate material all in the name of Open Source. Which gives open source a bad name and steps all over other legitimate "groups". How about this open source is a portal "copyright violaters software", which leads to full fledged pirating.*




I agree with you. People should not use open source as an excuse to steal. PCGen is not doing this, they have had permission for everything and when that persion has changed they have altered thier material accordingly.



			
				Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *Whining about how WoTC chooses to control their property is like whining to your neighbor to mow his lawn with the grain. *




My original point, and the one I have not recieved an answer for is whether by allowing its IP to be freely traded on the internet they can then complain when the same material is traded in a different file format.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 19, 2002)

Brown- PCGen has NOT had permission to use everything that they have distributed in the past.  This is a falacy that the PCGen folks have propogated.  I know this for a fact because they never aproached me for permission to use my copyrighted feats from the netBook of feats that were included in PCGen.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 19, 2002)

Smetzger-I don't wish to vear into this discussion as it has been covered at least 3 times that I can remember.  Leopold has stated many times they had permision from the netbook council to use the information, whether this is all the permission they need I don't know. Thier understanding from the council is that it was.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 19, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *Smetzger-I don't wish to vear into this discussion as it has been covered at least 3 times that I can remember.  Leopold has stated many times they had permision from the netbook council to use the information, whether this is all the permission they need I don't know. Thier understanding from the council is that it was. *




As far as I know he never said that the council gave him permission.  Its pretty clear that the council does not have the copyrights and thus does not have the right to give permission.

You are the one who brought it up.  I just want to make sure that people know the whole story.  I don't mind that they used my material w/o my consent.  However, I do mind that they gave the impression that they had my consent when they did not.


----------



## Drawmack (Aug 19, 2002)

First I am in no way affiliated with PCGen or WotC.

Okay, to address the issue of PI. What you're saying is that since many of the d20 publishers released their information in pdf format and a good amount for free (i.e. Bastion Press) that it would be leagal for me to take their PI and redistribute it in word format that's not the case. Here's the deal

PCGen is third party software that is released under the open source GPL. Of which a copy can be found here http://www.opensourcerers.com/gpl.html. This means that all copyrights to the software and associated files are in the public domain. Therefor if they include lst files with PI and a company knowingly and willfully allows this to continue then they give up the rights to that PI.

E-Tools is a piece of software produced for and by WotC and sold to their fan base. This being the case WotC can distribute their PI in their program's proprietary format without  without giving up said PI. It boils down to this they own the PI and the program so they can do whatever they want with those two things and you need to deal with it.

As far as reverse engineering the software goes. E-Tools runs on top of an access database. As such, they cannot possibly back up this assertion as technically MS reverse engineered their database before it was even built. They use a commercial database engine to create their database, they cannot say that I am not allowed to open their database inside of that engine. Therefor I can create my own compatible database, then create a front end for that database and then do with that what ever I like. Besides if someone besides me installs the software on my PC then I have not agreed to the lisense. So I'll have my GF install the software then I'm not bound by any agreement. It boils down to this, reverse engineering is legal because you can't make it illegal because you can't prove it. Besides all that, the files are not software any more then a word doc is software.


----------



## Mynex (Aug 19, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *Brown- PCGen has NOT had permission to use everything that they have distributed in the past.  This is a falacy that the PCGen folks have propogated.  I know this for a fact because they never aproached me for permission to use my copyrighted feats from the netBook of feats that were included in PCGen. *





Smetzger, 

   Let me clear this up for you, both Leopold and I talked with the team leads for the various netbooks AND the council asking for permission, we got it.  

If they were the wrong people to talk to my apologies, but please stop saying we 'lied about obtaining permission' it gets old very fast and it is simply not true.  If the council or the team leads did not have permission to give permission, you need to take that up with them, we contacted the 'publisher' (in this case the netbooks/council) so we did exactly what we said we did and by the terms as we understood them.  Bear in mind none of us are laywers, so contacting the 'publishers' is all we thought we were required to do.

If it is that offensive to you that we didn't contact you specifically, then I'll be more than happy to remove the netbooks from the releases until such a time as we (the PCGen Team) have time to contact everyone specifically and obtain their permission.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 19, 2002)

*Removed by Admin.*


AND i don't _care_ for any response from your part about this subject except absolute silence or a carefully worded appology.

[edit]
Me like the sarcasm ;-)
[/edit]

I appologize to the rest of the board for this outburst, but it's more than a little irritating to see the same damn thing in every few discussions.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 19, 2002)

Mynex said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Smetzger,
> ...




Thank you for providing accurate details about what happened.  I was unaware that the netbook councils gave you permission.  I will be taking that matter up with them.  

If you publish under d20 or OGL there is no need to obtain permission.

I am sorry for saying that you lied.  That was an exageration.


----------



## Henry (Aug 19, 2002)

Cergorach: I REALLY wish you hadn't done that.

Smetzger: Mynex's reply stands on its own. I really don't have anything to add there, other than, these guys don't fail for lack of trying.

Sm!rk: Again, I will let Mynex's reply stand here, with only one more thought - PCGen in no way attempts to steal ANYONE's intellectual IP, and is in fact (I state this as FACT) responsible for more purchases than were ever lost - in exactly the same way that the SRD was responsible for lost sales of the Players' handbook. You cannot use partial data to build something that it would take an entire book contents to finish out. It is to me as supportable as saying that a character sheet posted on the internet for the BRP Call of Cthulhu System violates IP published in the core rulebook for that game. PCgen has helped me make more use out of my WotC splatbooks than I ever would have gotten otherwise - because ever since I discovered that program, I LOATHE to write up a character on paper and pen. It's like going back to a washboard and tub after using a laundromat.

Brown Jenkin: I can understand your position, but as Davin has said, we are dealing with not only issues of IP copyright, but the fact that E-tools has just gotten out of the starting gate. It will be a while before any sort of fan-created IP violation crackdown is garnered. I won't say "if ever," because I can definitely see a crackdown coming if E-tools is not a ragin success.

I have finally gotten a chance to see a friend's copy of E-tools; I was somewhat unimpressed because of the lack of implemented features that it has compared to some of the other established packages out there. I do not bash Scott Matthews or Fluid Entertainment in any way; considering the obstacles that E-tools has had on its way to publication, it's amazing the thing ever made it to production. But its two strikes against it to me include (1) bugs and unimplemented features to be resolved with character generation, such as effects of changing attributes and equipping character, and (2) near-total loss of support during its development.


----------



## thepriz (Aug 19, 2002)

*Fantasy Comunity Council - Netbooks*

Most of the material in the Fantasy Community Council Netbooks are distributed under D20 and OGL licenses. There are a few instances where the material is not OGL and is clearly labeled in the license posted in each netbook. Each submission is submitted to the Fantasy Community Council under the D20 and OGL licence. For any work that is used out of a d20 publication it is customary but not necessary to get permission from the publisher. We as the Core Council have given our unnecessary permission to use our netbooks in the PcGen program. We have also done this in return such as the Netbook of Spells and Magic has contacted Sword and Sorcery to  to use their Ritual rules in our netbook. We didn't have to do this but we did. As far as I am concerned the submitter still holds whatever copyright he still has after releasing his submission to the FanCC under the D20 and OGL licenses, but I don't see what the big deal is with PcGen asking us for permission to use our netbooks.

Thanks,


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 19, 2002)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> *
> I appologize to the rest of the board for this outburst, but it's more than a little irritating to see the same damn thing in every few discussions. *




Unacceptable. You know the rules on this site. I don't care whether you're "a little irritated" or not, next time please walk away from the keyboard instead of posting personal insults. 

If anyone should be using "absolute silence or a carefully worded apology" in this case, it is you.

I have removed your post. If this is somehow a problem, please feel free to email me.  Please keep this thread civil, folks, or it will be closed.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 19, 2002)

Drawmack said:
			
		

> *
> As far as reverse engineering the software goes. E-Tools runs on top of an access database. As such, they cannot possibly back up this assertion as technically MS reverse engineered their database before it was even built. They use a commercial
> ...
> install the software then I'm not bound by any agreement. It boils down to this, reverse engineering is legal because you can't make it illegal because you can't prove it. Besides all that, the files are not software any more then a word doc is software.
> *




Pretty clueless, two things, one it doesn't matter who accepts the agreement, if you use the software, and there is no way to install it short of agreeing, *then* you are in agreement. Kinda like you can't "cross your fingers" while signing a contract to make it null and void, this isn't the playground. And when your mommy is telling you to take out the garbage you whining LaLaLaLa does not cancel out her order.
And secondly, you don't need to prove you reversed the database, the data in the database is still OWNED IP, owned by wotc. You can reverse it all you like, you still can't distribute it.

Where do these people come from? There is no such thing as a Wand of IP ownership removal, so give it a rest.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 19, 2002)

Henry: Thanks for bringing civility back to this. I agree with you on almost all points, particularly the part about hating to make paper characters anymore. The main drawback to me about using e-tools is the lack of class editing. I enjoy using PrCs and the inability to support this makes e-tools near useless to me.

Mynex: Thanks for once again stateing what has been stated repeadedly. I wish you the best of luck with your program and I understand your need to defend it whenever it is attacked. 

Drawmack: With regards to d20 publishers releasing information in pdf format whether for a price or for free, yes they deffinitely still control it. Now if Bastion Press (I don't know thier material or situation, I am using them as a hypothetical since you mentioned them) were to then allow and encourage this IP to be redistributed for free by others, then yes I believe they have given up control and I could reformat the data into a different file type first. If however at the release site or as part of the lisence agreement they prohibit this redistribution, then they still retain full rights and it would be illeagal to redistribute it without permission. 

Your point about PCGen being under the GPL and therefore all parts are open source, you may have a point there, I am not familiar with the details of this. If this is the case and I was a d20 publisher I would be reluctant to allow them to distribute my data. If I still wanted my product to be included, there is a way around this. I could prohibit the lst file from being distributed with PCGen, but make it downloadable from my site with the proper restrictions about redistribution in place. That way the Program can be GPL but my copyrights are still intact. If as Henry pointed out and I believe it is correct then the info in a lst is not nearly enough to compromise the majority of my IP, and if it increases my overall sales, then even given the GPL restrictions I may not have a problem with it.

As for WotC distributing thier IP directly from thier site, yes absolutely it is still thier IP and can not be redistributed without permission.  But as you said it is thiers to do with what they want. What they are doing right now however is encouraging, or at least allowing with full knowlege, other people to enter IP that was not included in the release and then freely distribute it on the internet. Once this is done they are no longer in control of how that material is used or distributed. My original point is that partialy aimed at WotC and partialy at these boards and others, why does the ban on lst files exist while this same IP is being distributed in a diferent file format. If you have knowlege of a ban on IP distribution in one format why is it ok to allow it in a different format, or if it is permissable to share in one format why not another. 

Unfortunately my point here may be unfavorable to everyone since it seams to me WotC has no desire to see e-tools succeed. If this is case then sure you can enforce the ban on non-SRD materials being redistributed, but then you kill both e-tools and PCGen at the same time. However if you want e-tools to suceed without competition from PCGen then you must officially release the non-SRD material. If WotC wishes to continue with thier current course however I don't see how the current discrimination against lst files can be allowed.

As far as the file format being proprietary, so is Word, Excel, and Access. This does not however grant Microsoft rights to anything you create and distribute using these programs. If you enter your own creative work into e-tools this is still your work and WotC has no rights to it. You may distribute this work anyway you choose, the file format is irrelavant.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 19, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> Sm!rk: Again, I will let Mynex's reply stand here, with only one more thought - PCGen in no way attempts to steal ANYONE's intellectual IP




No you are right, it wasn't an attempt, they succeeded as I mentioned in my other post. And it went on for 2 years unchecked, now we see hundreds of pcgen users whining cause they lost their free meal ticket.




> , and is in fact (I state this as FACT) responsible for more purchases than were ever lost




You saying "I state this as a FACT" doesn't magic it into a fact, lets *see* these facts. I'd like to know, do share.




> It is to me as supportable as saying that a character sheet posted on the internet for the BRP Call of Cthulhu System




I'm sure they are, especially the ones that use the D&D logo, but they are small time. They aren't parading about like they have a license to steal. Acting all rightous cause they're "free", but all the while standing on what represents their only real value, wotc IP, all stolen.



> I have finally gotten a chance to see a friend's copy of E-tools; I was somewhat unimpressed because of the lack of implemented features that it has compared to some of the other established packages out there.




What established packages, pcgen? Har, they should grovel at the feet of wotc for all they have benefitted, not such a good project to put on the resume though.
I was quite impressed with pcgen, I didn't know you could stack that many depths of windows edge effects. My strikes were spent and then some by a simple pH test, Min((26 - button size in pixels), 0) = strikes, that rates pcgen at about 20 strikes, working on a no hitter.

(Note: I hadn't made up a number of different window edges back-to-back prior, doubt I'll need to, who on earth could top pcgen?)


----------



## sigfried (Aug 19, 2002)

*Netbook of Feats and PCGen*

Hi everyone.

I just wanted to add what I can to this discussion.

I gave Mynex "permission" to use the feats in the netbook in a sense, but it was the same "permission' I give to anyone who asks if they can use the feats in the netbook, which is to say that they don't need my "permission" to do so.

All our material is OGC which means that under the terms of the OGL the authors have granted unlimited use to any and all.  Of course the OGL requires that they are used only in conjuction with that license, but I don't have the power to change any of that, so anyone asking me for permission to break the terms of the OGL is asking the wrong person.

If Mynex (pcgen) thought I was giving him "special" permission to do anything outside of using OGC content in the usual way, then he and I misunderstood what was going on.

When somone asks me if they can use the netbook I figure they are just asking for my blessing because they don't want to upset me, and so I explain that the whole point is for anyone to use it however they like and my blessing isn't needed.  I'll even format the information for them in a way that is helpfull.

I'll contact Mynex and clarify our position so that there are no misunderstandings.

Sigfried Trent
Team leader Netbook of Feats


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 19, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *Once this is done they are no longer in control of how that material is used or distributed.
> *




Where is that idea coming from? Its completely false. If wotc gave away a few DMGs at a convention does that mean they no longer hold ownership of their IP and you can go and OCR it, reprint it in some other format?



> *
> My original point is that partialy aimed at WotC and partialy at these boards and others, why does the ban on lst files exist while this same IP is being distributed in a diferent file format.
> *




You're telescoping on the lst files needlessly. It has nothing to do with the lst files themselves, it has to do with pcgen violations of copyright laws, the data could have been written on granite stones or on the asses of korean hookers, forget lst files, pcgen used material which is protected under US copyright laws. Simple. If pcgen were to use etools data they would still be in violation, yes its really that simple.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 19, 2002)

Sm!rk: I will give you the benifit of the doubt in your selection of my quotation without including the previous sentince which it refered to. With that included it reads 


> What they are doing right now however is encouraging, or at least allowing with full knowlege, other people to enter IP that was not included in the release and then freely distribute it on the internet. Once this is done they are no longer in control of how that material is used or distributed.



This has nothing to do with your response. The apropriate example would be if they gave away free DMGs then said "We don't have enough money to give FRCSs free but anyone who wants to retype the information and print it can give the books away instead of us."  

As for my focusing on lst files the same principle would aply to any format whether it be granite stones or anything else. I just happen to enjoy pcgen and the most useful format for me is lst files which are what is being banned. 

As for whether pcgen is violating copyright laws that is the subject for a different thread, which you can take up with Mynex.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 19, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *You're telescoping on the lst files needlessly. It has nothing to do with the lst files themselves, it has to do with pcgen violations of copyright laws, the data could have been written on granite stones or on the asses of korean hookers, forget lst files, pcgen used material which is protected under US copyright laws. Simple. If pcgen were to use etools data they would still be in violation, yes its really that simple. *




So... What your saying is that Eric Noah (one of the daddies of 3ED&D) is doing something horribly illegal by posting the Monsters of Faerun as E-Tools downloads on his site? And if Fluid allows it, they to are in grave violation of IP infringement (or worse Copyright and Trademark infringements)?

Oh-my-jolly-gosh! The horror!

No offense, but frankly i don't really care that much. And i think a lot o other folks won't either...

Let's be honest, if WotC cracks down on the E-Tools support by the community now, they lose a valuable resource. And let's be honest again, they need all the resources/support they can, because otherwise E-Tools will be a pretty useless tool...


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 19, 2002)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> *
> So... What your saying is that Eric Noah (one of the daddies of 3ED&D) is doing something horribly illegal by posting the Monsters of Faerun as E-Tools downloads on his site? And if Fluid allows it, they to are in grave violation of IP infringement (or worse Copyright and Trademark infringements)?
> *




Without permission from WotC, then Yes.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 19, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Without permission from WotC, then Yes. *




Just to confuse everything further.  Game mechanics are not copyrightable.  So, it is debatable if wether or not you would be in copyright violation.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 19, 2002)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> *
> So... What your saying is that Eric Noah (one of the daddies of 3ED&D) is doing something horribly illegal by posting the Monsters of Faerun as E-Tools downloads on his site? And if Fluid
> 
> Let's be honest, if WotC cracks down on the E-Tools support by the community now, they lose a valuable resource. And let's be honest again, bla bla bla more moaning... *





Are you trying to spread FUD or are you just not seeing anything anyone is saying? I'm voting for the former, because you seem to take a stab at etools every chance you get. And you continually try to allay me of your honesty, which I am now questioning.

But to contradict your logic, etools is a great resource exactly because the community can contribute. I would even say that was one of wotc's or fluids design goals. They made it simple to enter large amounts of user custom data. Time and money being what it is, it should be obvious that the users would be entering in data. It took years for wotc to develop all that material, do you think a small software developer could compete with thousands of fans all wanting their special modifications in the product? They did the best think I can think of, enable users to input what they want.
You don't have to wait for wotc to come around with an update to srd, they put that power in *each* persons hands. And mind you, not a select group of users that understand some arcane syntax like whatever lst is. So clearly its better than pcgen because it enables many more people to do exactly what everyone wants, add more stuff. More stuff equals better quality product. Your struggle now is because of a lack of foresight.


----------



## Cougar (Aug 19, 2002)

Wow. This is a great thread. It seems like Brown Jenkin is mad because his (and a lot of people's) favorite program is being forced to change in some way to comply. And he sees that this new product (eTools) is not being forced to comply in the same way.

Well, I have one simple answer for you. eTools AND the material contained therein AND the material people want to enter are all owned by Wizards of the Coast. Period. Wotc can do whatever they want with it. They can allow it one minute and sue the next. It is their right.

WotC is nice enough (I think the PCGen developers will agree) to talk to companies that have a competing product and negotiate how they can all get along.

Now my opinion on what is going on is this. WotC promised, a long time ago when the PHB came out that there would be the be all end all computer program to help everyone with 3e. This was promised and the idea was developed by people who probably don't even work for WotC anymore. Over time, WotC lost interest in this type of product, especially after the focus shifted away from online gaming. I think now they are happy that some product went out the door. I think they don't really care about what happens now that the rabid eTools fans have their software. If you were ever on the WotC boards you will know why I say rabid. This is why they will allow anyone to enter in the information from the non-SRD books. They will be happy if all the material is out there with no assistance from them. I think there may be a danger of people putting up non-WotC stuff on the eTools boards over at Fluid, or even if they used Star Wars or Wheel of Time (neither of which are REMOTELY compatible with eTools). But that would be easily solved by Fluid taking it off their boards.

So until WotC says don't distribute our material in eTools files, i guess you have to live with it, even though you can't distribute WotC material with PCGen. Complain to WotC. Just don't do it on anyone's behalf.


----------



## Mynex (Aug 19, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just to confuse everything further.  Game mechanics are not copyrightable.  So, it is debatable if wether or not you would be in copyright violation. *




It's really funny you should bring up, since that's what we (PCGen) has been saying all along.  *sigh*

And apparantly we were wrong.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 20, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *Are you trying to spread FUD or are you just not seeing anything anyone is saying? I'm voting for the former, because you seem to take a stab at etools every chance you get. And you continually try to allay me of your honesty, which I am now questioning. <1.17MP deleted by SySoP>*




I'm not exactly sure what FUD is, but i have a pretty accurate guess (i think). I'm not trying to spread FUD, i'm just a bit tired of everyone busting their caps over PcGen or E-Tools, each has it's own champions (and of course there are the doomsday cults that say Nay to everything), and it seems each time a related thread starts a battle is fought between the different groups. Now i dragged Eric into this (sorry btw) because he is _tha man_, and people have difficulty saying anything bad about him. If he is doing it and Fluid is accepting this, it must not be all bad (or so i hope so). Call it a confrontation ;-)

As for me 'bashing' E-Tools, not really true. Although i'll admit to anyone that it's initial release is pretty crud (there's missing some basic functionality that should be in there), i think it has great potential. Why else do you think i'm trying to find a solution to the +1 caster level problem? I've put my eggs into the E-Tools basket, mostly because i can expect some commercial support (i hope) and i think my players will appreciate the E-Tools interface a lot more then the PcGen one.



> It took years for wotc to develop all that material, do you think a small software developer could compete with thousands of fans all wanting their special modifications in the product? They did the best think I can think of, enable users to input what they want.



Actually Fluid only made the provisions of only enabling users to enter about half the data, and as in everything in D&D a half get's rounded down. Give me 150 man hours and i could produce a written plan on how to implement everything with maximum flexibility, for some reason Fluid failed on the part of maximum flexibility (which is understandable given the background of the Master Tools).


> You don't have to wait for wotc to come around with an update to srd, they put that power in *each* persons hands. And mind you, not a select group of users that understand some arcane syntax like whatever lst is. So clearly its better than pcgen because it enables many more people to do exactly what everyone wants, add more stuff. More stuff equals better quality product. Your struggle now is because of a lack of foresight.



I have to agree that inputting a new monster/item/feat/spell is pretty simple within the tool limits. But when you want to make something a bit more complex (such as a new class or prestige class) you'll have to dig into the Access Database and i'l tell you from experience that the Access DB is a lot more difficult to work with than with a lst file (which everyone with a plain text editor could edit/produce). I've spent a good part of my saturday afternoon exploing the DB and am still not sure on what does what in E-tools, but after spending 10 minutes browsing through some lst files i could make them...

Now my question to you, do you want WotC to crush the E-Tools files swapping activity? Do you think that would be beneficial for E-Tools as a tool? Do you think discussing E-Tools user transgressions will allow PcGen to suddenly be allowed to distribute WotC IP? If you answered all the above questions with no, what exactly is the point of discussing the above?


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 20, 2002)

Boy, it's sure warm in here. 

This actually involves some of the topics that are close to home with me (and apparently some others).

In my mind, here are the issues (in no particular order):

1.) Let's deal with the issue of the FanCC giving "permission" for the inclusion of material into PCGen.  I am not familiar with PCGen, however, provided it complies with the Open Gaming License, there is no real way to preclude most FanCC material (which is by and large Open Game Content) from being included.  As Sigfried Trent has mentioned, when you release something as OGC, you have literally given permission for anyone to use it provided they do so pursuant to the terms of the OGL.  That PCGen contacted Team Leaders and Council members of the FanCC (as the "publisher") is nice, but unnecessary in the full sense of the word.  Similarly, the "permission" so granted is more of a blessing than permission - the FanCC has no right to stop PCGen from using any OGC material, provided such use is made under the OGL.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that under the terms of the OGL, a cure period of 30 days applies - meaning if you goof you have 30 days to fix it.  While I am not suggesting that this legally shields you from the consequences of using someone else's copyrighted material (it doesn't - I couldn't publish Lord of the Rings, slap an OGL on the end of it, then tell Tolkien's estate they have to give me 30 days to stop distributing it), it seems to me that the 30-day fix clause is there as a gesture of goodwill among all publishers of Open Game Content.

But I digress... on to the meatier issues.

2.) I absolutely agree that PCGen has a legal responsibility to respect the rights of others' IP - and as far as I can tell, they have made a good-faith effort to do so.  However, WotC has a moral and ethical right to assist PCGen in their efforts or deny them permission to use material... something that apparently they have failed to do until this time (WotC's policy seems to be to ignore communication regarding request for permission - and I don't mean they don't give permission, I mean they won't even tell you "no").  In my mind, this puts WotC in the wrong, not PCGen - silence on a question can be interpreted as implicit permission or implicit forbiddance.  Who is to tell which one the silence means?

3.) Preferred file formats - If WotC wants to use a proprietary format as their preferred format, that is their right, I suppose.  That Fluid seems to have permission to host these files indicates that WotC *is* ignoring certain terms of the license agreement for pragmatic reasons.  The issue of "other publishers' stuff" being included is a sticky one, though - E-Tools does not use the OGL - because WotC doesn't have to (a sore point for me - if they want to set the rules, they should at least play by them), and therefore, in the strictest sense, anything NOT published by WotC that ends up on Fluids site puts them in serious jeopardy.  I don't know whether to hope it won't happen so that WotC doesn't crack down and I can get a lot of files, or hope it will happen so WotC gets dragged into court and forced to void the terms of its license agreement (since it wasn't obeying them in the first place).



> Wow. This is a great thread. It seems like Brown Jenkin is mad because his (and a lot of people's) favorite program is being forced to change in some way to comply. And he sees that this new product (eTools) is not being forced to comply in the same way.



It's certainly within the bounds of legality, but is ethically and morally bankrupt.  Similar to WotC's continued delays on approving - and adding to - the SRD.  That thing should have been approved by WotC's legal beagles within a month of the MM's release.  It's been almost two years.  Bleah.  Don't get me started on that either.  Get on the ball, WotC - it looks REAL unprofessional and in bad faith.

4.) 







> f course no other industry has been able to get a law passed that allowed something that was tangibly purchased to be construed as a license to use the product instead of an outright possession.



Precisely.  Software companies are NOT interested in "innovation."  If they were, all programs would be open source so ANYONE could innovate on it (the largest talent pool possible).  Software companies are interested in MONEY (which is not in and of itself a bad thing - if they weren't they'd cease to exist) but there is much truth to the barb that "software companies only innovate when they litigate."

5) This is insulting...



> There is no issue. WoTC owns the IP, they can do with it as they please.  The real facts are that pcgen have been commercially exploiting all sorts of IP for the past two years with no say so from the owners. The hoped to exist under the blind eye of a large corp and succeeded, until now.






> What I find funny are group of people that somehow manage to ignore common sense and feel they have a right to pirate material all in the name of Open Source.




I find this more than a bit insulting.  One provision of copyright law is the right of "transfer of medium" (IANAL, so that may not be the legal term for it) but essentially, it is the right of someone who purchases a work to transcribe it - or cause it to be transcribed - into another medium for their own personal use.  I own a CD burner.  I use it to make copies of my audio CDs.  I take the burned copy in my CD player and play it.  I put the original copy into archive/storage.  Some of my CDs I instead transfer to MP3's and put onto my hard drive so I can play them from the hard drive (the original CD stays in storage).  By the same token, if I transfer data - even copyrighted data - into a digital format because I prefer to have it that way, that is my right.  I have pirated nothing (though there are many forces out there working hard to take away that right, believe me).  What does PCGen offer?  As far as I can tell, it offers to me (personally) the same data I have in my bookshelf in an electronic format.  I have every right to access that data in that format.

That the distribution method happens to be an Open Source program makes no difference - you're confusing the issue there.  Open Source <> piracy, though apparently you are of the opinion that the two are essentially one and the same.  That in and of itself tells me that we disagree on some fundamental points (below).  You certainly have a right to your opinion, and in many ways, the legal system agrees with you.  I happen to think that makes it a morally bankrupt legal system and the true "pirates" of IP are companies that continue to pirate the public domain by continuously extending copyright length (remember your history -  classic "pirates" from the 17th century usually operated under a charter and with the blessings of a government - one that was corrupt and in collusion with the pirates - pirates did not operate outside the law), but that's beside the point.

6.) Those of you who don't want to listen to a long rant on PI and IP and social contracts and copyright will want to stop reading here.

The whole concept of Product Identity ("PI") and Intellectual Property "IP" are two very different things... and I believe some of the posts here have confused them.

Myself, I personally am of the opinion that the term "Intellectual Property" is a gross misnomer and that the concept that an idea - or the expression thereof - is some form of "property" is morally and ethically reprehensible and invalid.  I understand that copyright does not protect the idea, merely the set of words and/or images used to express that idea.  

However, the original purpose of copyright was essentially to compensate the person who took the time to transcribe the idea, taking it from a nebulous concept to a set of words and/or images (or sound, or what have you - essentially, into a communicable medium).  There was never any concept of "ownership" of the idea - or the words/images involved.  They were and are not property in the traditional sense because of the lack of exclusivity of ownership (i.e., my owning a thing naturally precludes you from owning it and vice versa - if I own a car, you cannot own that same car - you may own another car just like it, but it is a different car with a different VIN, etc.).  However, companies and individuals have twisted the definition of copyright to create the concept of "intellectual property."  My owning the exact same idea as you in no way interferes with your right to own and use that idea.  I could go on, but suffice to say that I personally feel that copyright as it exists today is pure bovine scatology.  

Society originally invented the concept of copyright to incent the person who took the time to make an idea communicable - with no incentive to transcribe something, why take the time to do it? - before eventually passing that "Transcript" into this nifty thing called the "public domain" where EVERY member of society could be enriched by it freely.  However, the current twisting of copyright law to make things such as "intellectual property" essentially permanent, hence completely stopping the flow of ideas into the public domain, attacks the very reason society granted copyright in the first place.  Anyone who argues for intellectual property rights is very literally placing himself at odds with society at large.  This being the case, Intellectual Property is an enemy of society and should be attacked vigorously by society (it is not attacked by lawmakers, because they are in the pockets of those who claim to "own" the IP, but Napster, the Internet, and other such technologies clearly show that society itself is at war - and rightly so - with the concept of IP).

I have digressed considerably from the main stream of the arguments here, so let me pull it back.  The argument that, "it's WotC's intellectual property, so they should be able to bully people into non-use or allow free use as they choose" does not hold water for me.  Something can be legal but immoral and unethical.  Since I hold morality and ethics in higher esteem than law (call me Chaotic Good if you must), I will tell you that WotC has the legal right to do so, but not the "true" or "natural" right to do so.  If the law is unethical, is it ethical to obey the law (pose THAT one to your LG paladin some time)?

Bottom line:

Is WotC within its legal rights to "bother" (for lack of a more neutral term) PCGen?  Absolutely.
Is WotC's position unassailable?  No.  WotC's silence on many issues is an ethical and moral shortfall, and they ought to have suspected that something like PCGen would happen due to the incompetence shown in the development of Master Tools.
Do I agree with Sm!rk?  No, because I proceed from a different set of premises.
Does my opinion matter? Probably not.
Why is this post so long? Because I am long-winded and ramble.

Flame on! 

--The Sigil


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 20, 2002)

I partially agree with your assesment of our current copyright concept, and the bad signs on which way it is heading. But, it is what it is. Law or no law, pcgen is not making a statement of civil diobediance, they are using wotc IP to create value in their product.

Your cd analogy does not apply, for the same reason that I can't say "oh I don't have a cd burner so hence can't make a "backup" so can you send me the full cd in mp3 format, thx!" You can freely copy for your personal use because simply there is no enforceable way to prevent that, give away that which you cannot hold.




			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> of a blessing than permission - the FanCC has no right to stop PCGen from using any OGC material, provided such use is made under the OGL.




Thats only if the other product is also OGC, which pcgen upto v3 was not (and are still repairing now). These are the same concepts used in GPL, if I make some GPL software you can use it and reuse it as long you also follow the GPL. If you are not GPL then you certainly cannot use other GPL. LGPL is a bit different.




> 2.) I absolutely agree that PCGen has a legal responsibility to respect the rights of others' IP - and as far as I can tell, they have made a good-faith effort to do so.




I take a harder line than that, the mere fact that they have violated it for 2 years should show that they aren't doing anything in good faith. They willfully used non-SRD, non-OGC for at least 2 years. 



> Who is to tell which one the silence means?




Thats pretty shaky logic. Silence means exactly that, nothing. Is the material OGC? If no, then you can't use it, simple. Just because you *want* to use it, doesn't make it a moral imperative for wotc to come forward and let you know wether you can or can't.




> being included is a sticky one, though - E-Tools does not use the OGL - because WotC doesn't have to (a sore point for me - if they want to set the rules, they should at least play by them), and




The one with the gold makes the rules. You complaining about that just sounds like whining. Its *their* ball, they *can* take it home with them.




> Precisely.  Software companies are NOT interested in "innovation."  If they were, all programs would be open source so ANYONE could innovate on it (the largest talent pool possible).  Software companies are interested in MONEY (which is




So there is no innovation in commercial software? But I agree pcgen has lots of innovation, I'm still astounded by the skill it took to get 5 different window edge effects on the same screen.





> However, the original purpose of copyright was essentially to compensate the person who took the time to transcribe the idea, taking it from a nebulous concept to a set of words and/or




It was nothing about compensate. It was to encourage you to put it in paper (etc) so that all the people could benefit. You could give it for free or sell it, but it is protected from being "copied" by another entity. The base concept is really simple.




> My owning the exact same idea as you in no way interferes with your right to own and use that idea.




Yes and that is exactly why we have copyright, so that you can print your idea and we *all* can benefit. Its just that for the first gazillion years you have strict "copying rights". So I can't take your idea, add nothing to it, then reprint it and make money. Pcgen is doing exactly that.




> Anyone who argues for intellectual property rights is very literally placing himself at odds with society at large.




Is that a rephrashed version of, no true scotsman would argue for IP? I think so.

You either support it or you don't. If you don't support it then you have civil disobediance and other means to protest. Pcgen is doing none of that, they are within the system trying to benefit from using the IP, they aren't making any stand for protest. They are personally benefitting from the use of the IP. I would guess Stallman would be outraged to hear that they are violating copyright and earning money from doing so, all under the name of LGPL.





> This being the case, Intellectual Property is an enemy of society and should be attacked vigorously by society (it is not attacked by lawmakers, because they are in the pockets of those who claim to "own" the IP, but Napster, the Internet, and other such technologies clearly show that society itself is at war - and rightly so - with the concept of IP).




Oh my. Is that so? The simple fact that Napster existed to transfer IP should already prove that "it" (music in this case) very much is already property, maybe its your view of property that is outdated and at odds with society, property is not so much attached to real world mass than value.
There is no struggle, there is no war. People have been voilating copyright and reselling copies since the birth of it all. This means nothing about the validity of copyright, for the same reason that people still murdering doesn't mean that murder should be legal. Automatic weapons, explosives makes wholesale killing as easy as the internet makes pirating music, books and software, this says nothing about the validity of laws setup to prevent either action.
What it really is, is power, and with that comes responsibility, most people cannot handle that level and will abuse it, by pirating or killing people.




> Since I hold morality and ethics in higher esteem than law (call me Chaotic Good if you must), I will tell you that WotC has the legal right to do so, but not the "true" or "natural" right to do so.  If the law is unethical, is it ethical to obey the law (pose THAT one to your LG paladin some time)?




If I have learned anything from D&D it is that there are 9 alignments. My morality is that of true neutral, we differ, so which one of us is right? (That last part you can't learn from D&D.)


----------



## Luke (Aug 20, 2002)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> However, WotC has a moral and ethical right to assist PCGen in their efforts or deny them permission to use material... something that apparently they have failed to do until this time (WotC's policy seems to be to ignore communication regarding request for permission - and I don't mean they don't give permission, I mean they won't even tell you "no").  In my mind, this puts WotC in the wrong, not PCGen - silence on a question can be interpreted as implicit permission or implicit forbiddance.  Who is to tell which one the silence means?
> *
> Not really. The PCGen team knowingly avoided using either the OGL or the D20 license. This was deliberate, and hence WotC were under no obligation so show how and where the violations were made.
> ...


----------



## bitz (Aug 20, 2002)

MayI quote the user manual of E-Tools... Just to throw fuel to the fire...

_"For the truly hardcore, you could edit the Access database table to your liking.  This would provide you with a layer of customization to your creations that could not be obtained using only the House Editor. To edit the E-Tools database, you would need a copy of Microsoft Access (about $200 bucks), and considerable familiarity with the software.  We don’t recommend you do this however.  In fact, we strongly advise you against it.

If you decide to plunge ahead anyway, just be careful if you decide to toss your version of the database out there to the community at large.  *If somebody downloads your database and doesn’t back up their old version, they will wipe out all their house creations in the process.  Or if they build a new creation with your database and then revert back to their database, chances are their new creations won’t work or report properly ever again.*"_

They're saying, "Yeah! Go ahead and share, just beware!"

_"Lastly, many tables across the core rulebooks have not been included.  We selected and included those tables we felt had the most utility and appeal.  Some of the tables we built – like the organization and encounter tables from the MM – aren’t really tables to be found in the MM in the first place.  We just thought it was cool to generate a large, concatenated stat block for a tribe of hobgoblins with a couple clicks of the mouse.  *We hope and expect the community out there to build the rest of the 3E tables- and some cool unique ones we haven’t seen* – and share them with the rest of us._

So, they at least want custom content for the missing tables.... =)

Just mentioning that there is a general positive flow of adding content to the database & files. When fluid releases their Add-On for Forgotten Realms, all of our custom content will have to be thrown out (because of the db changes, most likely), but we'll adapt and use our own 'imperfect' content until then.

I will laugh if WotC/Fluid takes our custom content, tweaks it, and releases it as their own. Lol!


----------



## smetzger (Aug 20, 2002)

Game mechanics aren't copyrightable.



			
				Mynex said:
			
		

> *
> 
> It's really funny you should bring up, since that's what we (PCGen) has been saying all along.  *sigh*
> 
> And apparantly we were wrong. *




I never heard anyone from PCGen say they were going the route.  I have always heard PCGen folk say something like: "we have special permission from everyone, therefore we don't need to release under OGL or d20".  Thats completly different from saying "we don't need permission"

I believe that it is a gray enough legal area that the copyright issues would need to be settled in court.  So, unless WOTC threatened you with legal action, nothing has been decided on this issue.


----------



## Mynex (Aug 20, 2002)

> Yes and that is exactly why we have copyright, so that you can print your idea and we *all* can benefit. Its just that for the first gazillion years you have strict "copying rights". So I can't take your idea, add nothing to it, then reprint it and make money. Pcgen is doing exactly that.
> 
> You either support it or you don't. If you don't support it then you have civil disobediance and other means to protest. Pcgen is doing none of that, they are within the system trying to benefit from using the IP, they aren't making any stand for protest. They are personally benefitting from the use of the IP. I would guess Stallman would be outraged to hear that they are violating copyright and earning money from doing so, all under the name of LGPL.




I don't know what your personal issues with PCGen are, and I really don't care.  However I do care that you are spreading lies and slandering the PCGen Team.  This will stop.  Now.

No one makes any money from PCGen, NO ONE, by any means.

PCGen is NOT charged for, never has been, never will be.

You are NOT a lawyer, you have stated so previously.  So you are posting out of your a$$, like a great deal of your posts on this topic.

Learn the facts or shut up and get over it.

Congrats, you've finally hit my threshold for tolerating stupidity.

And yes, I _AM_ angry while typing and really don't give a flying fig whether you're <sarcasm>delicate feelings get hurt.</sarcasm>


----------



## bushfire (Aug 20, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *Just to confuse everything further.  Game mechanics are not copyrightable.  So, it is debatable if wether or not you would be in copyright violation. *




Well I know people have stated this before on many boards but I don't believe that this statement has *ever* been tested in a court of law. Until someone actually wins a case, and sets presedent, with this defense, it is just a nice idea.   Does anyone know of any case law in regards to this? (something that actually went to trial, not settled out of court)

Besides, even if this is the case it does not excuse the fact that while you may use the game mechanics most of the terms used to describe it are still copyrighted. All of the Wotc books, along with *every* spell name, feat name, skill name, most class names, etc, etc. Including any text describing these. Even the stuff released under the OGL is still copyrighted and cannot be used outside of the D20/OGL license.

So while you *may* be able to use the mechanics it would have to pretty vanilla.


----------



## Mynex (Aug 20, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *Game mechanics aren't copyrightable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Then you obviously missed/haven't been paying attention to the posts on the yahoo group, Bryan's 1st post on this topic was over a year ago there.

And as we were told in no uncertain terms, buy using ANY OGC content we agreed, even unknowingly to abide by the OGL.  D20 is where are issues lay atm, since D20 compliancy requires that software not have any interactive points to it (like die rolling).

Since we DID fall under the OGL, and have since the very 1st data set we released, the issue does NOT revolve around OGL compliancy.  And yes, this information IS from Lawyers that understand OGL and Software, and it is FACT.  WE, as in the PCGen Team, did not understand this, and that is what caused so much confusion in the 1st place, that's OUR mistake.

(directed to all, not Smetzger specifically)

So unless you ARE a lawyer AND familiar with OGL AND Software laws, stop speculating and spreading false information and slandering the PCGen team and PCGen itself.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 20, 2002)

Mynex said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then you obviously missed/haven't been paying attention to the posts on the yahoo group, Bryan's 1st post on this topic was over a year ago there.
> *




No, I don't subscribe to that group.  My comment was based on posts that people have made in this forum and the emphasis that PCGen folk have placed on getting permission.  It is unclear, to me, from your home page on how you are addressing copyright issues.  If your intent was to use the 'game mechanics cannot be copyrighted ' clause, then I stand corrected.  



			
				Mynex said:
			
		

> *
> And as we were told in no uncertain terms, buy using ANY OGC content we agreed, even unknowingly to abide by the OGL.  D20 is where are issues lay atm, since D20 compliancy requires that software not have any interactive points to it (like die rolling).
> *




I am not a lawyer, but I can read.  I don't believe that if you use OGC content you are automatically obliged to use the OGL.  For instance Fluid includes OGC material in their program and they are not OGL or d20.  I believe if you use OGC material but don't release under OGL or d20 than you fall under the broader copyright laws.  Also, if I were writing an article explaining RPGs to the general public and included some things that happened to be OGC the article would not be OGL or d20.

True, there is a clause in the d20 license about Interactive Game.  But that is defined as '...resolving the success or failure...'  Since d20 character generation does not have success or failure (like the old Traveller), I don't believe PCGen would be defined as an Interactive Game.

I am sorry if you feel that I am slandering PCGen, that is not my intention.  In fact I think that you should continue with the "game mechanics are non-copyrightable" strategy.  Just that if/when you get permission for d20 content that you get it from the right people(and make sure they know they are giving permission to use the material outside of the OGL/d20 license) and that you make it clear somewhere on your webpage and in the Help About box of PCGen that some material is used without permission.  But that seems moot now that you have started down the d20/OGL path.


----------



## Cougar (Aug 20, 2002)

Fluid doesn't need to use the OGL or D20 because they ARE WotC. Fluid itself is only the developer. WotC is the publisher of the software and they don't need any special license to use their own material. Some people seem to think that Fluid is an entity like the development team of PCGen. They are not. Fluid is a company contractually obligated to produce eTools by WotC. Saying they are violating the OGL is like saying the printers WotC uses for printing the PHB are violating the OGL. In this case Fluid and WotC is one and the same. They can use any material, SRD or non-SRD, without having to comply with any special license.



Smetzger, I think everyone here knows you are continually trying to bash PCGen for using your feats from the Netbook. If I was the developers of PCGen or the Netbook council I would take your feats out and let that be that.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 20, 2002)

Cougar said:
			
		

> * Smetzger, I think everyone here knows you are continually trying to bash PCGen for using your feats from the Netbook. If I was the developers of PCGen or the Netbook council I would take your feats out and let that be that. *




I am not trying to bash PCGen.   Go back and re-read the third paragraph of my last post.  Also, a misconception and a miscommunication has been cleared up as a result of this thread.


----------



## Cougar (Aug 20, 2002)

I was refering to this in particular. 




			
				smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just that if/when you get permission for d20 content that you get it from the right people(and make sure they know they are giving permission to use the material outside of the OGL/d20 license) and that you make it clear somewhere on your webpage and in the Help About box of PCGen that some material is used without permission.  *





What are you refering to? Has anyone else complained about having their OGL content included? Seems like you still harbor resentment and need to bring it up at every turn. And if you DON"T harbor resentment, when it sure as hell sounds that way.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 20, 2002)

Cougar said:
			
		

> *I was refering to this in particular.
> 
> *




I am trying to help PCGen avoid some of the mistakes that they have made in the past.  It is quite possible that other publishers thought they were giving permission to a use their OGC material in a d20/OGL product as the netBook Council members had.


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 20, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *However, I do mind that they gave the impression that they had my consent when they did not. *



Actually, once they are fully OGL-compliant (and I think they are), they do *not* need to ask the publisher for permission to use OGC.  Most material in the NBs are OGC, as per the PA.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 20, 2002)

Well apparently nobody wants to answer the question I originally brought up. Instead we are now spending our time argueing over the legality of PCGen. Oh well. The closest I have heard in a while on answering my question is the following



			
				Cergorach said:
			
		

> *
> Now my question to you, do you want WotC to crush the E-Tools files swapping activity? Do you think that would be beneficial for E-Tools as a tool? Do you think discussing E-Tools user transgressions will allow PcGen to suddenly be allowed to distribute WotC IP? If you answered all the above questions with no, what exactly is the point of discussing the above? *




no(maybe).  no.  yes(maybe).  What is the point? The point is I hate hypocrisy. There is a double standard going on right now that allows the free trading of WotC IP in one file format and not another. I have yet to hear an answer as to why that is. I wish WotC would be consistant in its crushing of file swapping activity, that means either they stop both, or they allow both. You can't have it both ways. I personally feel it would be better for all involved if they allowed it otherwise you neuter both programs. Yes I hope that by discussing this others will realize the hypocrisy of it and do something about it either way. But aparently the answer seems to be that no-one wants to hear this. 

Oh well, if it will make everyone feel better the emperor does have clothes. I will now go stick my head back in the sand until everthing is ok.


----------



## Cougar (Aug 20, 2002)

Brown Jenkin did you read MY posts? Did you read anyone's posts?

What double hypocrisy? Wizards can do anything they want with their program. They can allow people to distribute files of that nature and not allow other groups. There is no double standard. There would only be a double standard if two seperate non-WotC groups were developing a character generator and WotC told one that it didn't have to worry about complying with any standard and told the other to cease and desist. 


WotC came up with the OGL and the D20 system to allow game developers (including software developers) to produce material for the D20 system, of which 3rd Edition was the flagship. WotC has been very patient with PCGen (and others) and has given them plenty of time to become compliant, which they are working towards. WotC owns this new system of gaming, so of course they want everyone to comply with it. Now they have produced an electronic aid for their system. They aren't required to follow ANY of the OGL or D20 standards. They can include any amount of material they want or allow any users to enter in what they want.

I honestly don't understand why you think this is unfair. If you create something, you want to keep control of it. If there was no D20 or OGL license than there would be no debate. You are griping at WotC for essentially being too NICE and allowing other developers to use their ideas.

The main point is, WotC owns the file format and the program that is currently being allowed to traffic. They do not own PCGen. WotC will make money if their product is supported by the fans entering in the data from books because more people will see this and BUY eTools. WotC will not make any money if PCGen continues to make available their product (whether PCGen makes money or not).

They can have it both ways. They don't have to allow PCGen to include their material. WotC wants to make money by selling eTools. The better eTools is supported by the community the more people will want it, just like PCGen. The only difference here is (and the answer to your question) is that WotC wants to make money on eTools. For some reason I can't understand you feel this is wrong, even though the program and the IP both belong to WotC.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 20, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> > I partially agree with your assesment of our current copyright concept, and the bad signs on which way it is heading. But, it is what it is. Law or no law, pcgen is not making a statement of civil diobediance, they are using wotc IP to create value in their product.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 20, 2002)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> *I'm not exactly sure what FUD is*



I know it as 







> *F*ear, *U*ncertainty and *D*oubt


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 20, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *I am trying to help PCGen avoid some of the mistakes that they have made in the past.  It is quite possible that other publishers thought they were giving permission to a use their OGC material in a d20/OGL product as the netBook Council members had. *



But you don't need to have permission to use OGC if you abide by the OGL.  And, as Mynex has said







			
				Mynex said:
			
		

> *And as we were told in no uncertain terms, buy using ANY OGC content we agreed, even unknowingly to abide by the OGL. D20 is where are issues lay atm, since D20 compliancy requires that software not have any interactive points to it (like die rolling).*



 they were, unbeknownst to them, operating under the OGL.







> _Originally from the OGL _
> *4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.*



Therefore, you create OGC, you have granted anyone who wants to use it the right to use it.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 20, 2002)

Cougar said:
			
		

> *Brown Jenkin did you read MY posts? Did you read anyone's posts?*




I could ask the same of you. Maybe I am phrasing things badly but once more I feel as if my question is left unanswered. One last time I will resond to this same reply.



			
				Cougar said:
			
		

> *What double hypocrisy? Wizards can do anything they want with their program. They can allow people to distribute files of that nature and not allow other groups. There is no double standard. There would only be a double standard if two seperate non-WotC groups were developing a character generator and WotC told one that it didn't have to worry about complying with any standard and told the other to cease and desist. *




Yes absolutely WotC can do what it wants with its property. If they want to give away the material for free to anyone who asks, great, but even in this case they still control its distribution and use. My point is they are encouraging or allowing with full knowlege anyone to copy and distribute material that they own and are not releasing themselves. If WotC provided this information themselves there would be no arguement, the IP belongs to them period. By not doing it themselves they are either encouraging acts of piracy by thier position, since no-one who is doing this owns the rights to this material they are distributing, or they are saying that it is ok to freely distribute this material. If it is the later then the IP is no longer under thier control and therfore is now public domain since anyone can access and distribute it. 



			
				Cougar said:
			
		

> *WotC came up with the OGL and the D20 system to allow game developers (including software developers) to produce material for the D20 system, of which 3rd Edition was the flagship. WotC has been very patient with PCGen (and others) and has given them plenty of time to become compliant, which they are working towards. WotC owns this new system of gaming, so of course they want everyone to comply with it. Now they have produced an electronic aid for their system. They aren't required to follow ANY of the OGL or D20 standards. They can include any amount of material they want or allow any users to enter in what they want.*




Yes absolutely. I don't disagree at all. I fully agree that users can enter anything they want to legaly. My point is not the entering but the redistribution of copyright materials. As an analogy that has been used elsewhere. I can make mp3s or cassettes of any CD I own legally. I can not then freely distribute it however. While I am on the example the point I am making is that WotC has said Feel free to redistribute the songs on mp3 but not on cassette. Are these songs now public domain? Once they say go ahead and redistribute are they allowed to control the medium of redistribution?



			
				Cougar said:
			
		

> *I honestly don't understand why you think this is unfair. If you create something, you want to keep control of it. If there was no D20 or OGL license than there would be no debate. You are griping at WotC for essentially being too NICE and allowing other developers to use their ideas.*




There would still be a debate as the point is still valid. If I write a book about my life, can I allow it to be copied and redistributed by any third party in only word format, or by allowing it to be freely copied and redistributed in one format am I giving up my rights to it.



			
				Cougar said:
			
		

> *The main point is, WotC owns the file format and the program that is currently being allowed to traffic. They do not own PCGen. WotC will make money if their product is supported by the fans entering in the data from books because more people will see this and BUY eTools. WotC will not make any money if PCGen continues to make available their product (whether PCGen makes money or not).
> 
> They can have it both ways. They don't have to allow PCGen to include their material. WotC wants to make money by selling eTools. The better eTools is supported by the community the more people will want it, just like PCGen. The only difference here is (and the answer to your question) is that WotC wants to make money on eTools. For some reason I can't understand you feel this is wrong, even though the program and the IP both belong to WotC. *




Whether or not WotC owns the file format or not does not mater. Does microsoft have any claim to the way thier word format is used? Yes WotC will make money if thier product is supported by the fans. According to the OGL/d20 licence which assuming PCGen is in complience with (which should be soon) WotC can not stop PCGen from having a product that is equal to the actual release of e-tools 1.0. WotC is trying to give a competitive advantage to e-tools however by making it so e-tools has more information than PCgen. This is fine and great if it being done legally. The way to do this is to officialy release the extra information. If they did this, then great. I will gladly fork over extra money myself. What I see them doing however is either encouraging piracy to get that advantage or making the info public then attempting to prevent its use by PCGen, both of which I see as illegal.

Once more here at the end I will restate the question. Is it legal for a company to allow the free redistribution of its IP by anyone and still maintain FULL rights to it?


----------



## Archimedes (Aug 20, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> Once more here at the end I will restate the question. Is it legal for a company to allow the free redistribution of its IP by anyone and still maintain FULL rights to it? *




Once more I'll answer your question, though I don't know why you weren't happy with the answer I gave previously.

An author of a work holds copyright until 70 years after his death. Somebody that commissions a work for hire holds that copyright for 120 years.

A copyright holder can allow or disallow copying on a whim.  There's no way they lose that copyright my failing to defend it.

Others have stated that you can't copyright a system.  This is true, because systems are covered by patent law.

Trademarks are a different matter.  These are meant to identify and differentiate products or services and to protect a company's "good name" from competitors using that trademark for competing products or services.

Trademarks must be vigorously defended or you lose them!  Obviously WotC hold trademarks on Dungeons & Dragons and D20.

This current issue with PCGen stems from them going to WotC and asking to use their D20 TRADEMARK.  PCGen will have to follow their guidelines on this whether it has anything to do with copyright or not.  I don't think it has anything to do with e-tools either, because the PCGen gang initiated this whole thing!

Intellectual Property is a grouping for Copyrights, Trademarks, Patents, and Trade Secrets.  All four of these are covered by different sets of law, so discussing this issue using that term is partly to blame for all this confusion.

Sam


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 20, 2002)

Archimedes - Sorry about that. Upon going back and reraeding your previous post you did mention this in your earlier post but I read the meaning wrong as it was in very short form. I apreciate the fuller description you just gave. Most people have responded that the info belongs to WotC and they can do what they want, which is not the type of response I was looking for (correct as it may be it does not help understanding the point). I was trying to gain understanding and just giving that reply does not help. So with this in mind Sony could allow anyone to freely distribute mp3s of songs they own the copyright for and at the same time prevent the same songs from being distributed on cassette. Seems odd to me but if this is the case so be it.

Sigil-Thank you also but it was hard pulling out fact from the large amount of opinion that was included as well. I do agree with you on most of your opinions as well, but until polititicians are no longer bought and paid for we are stuck with what we have.

To others I apologize as well for providing a forum where once more we degenerate into the legality of PCGen and thier past behaviors. This was not my purpose but aparrently others thought it was. 

Mynex-thanks for defending your program better than I can, unfortunately it had to come to that. Until e-tools can provide PrC support I will continue to use yours, no matter the data provided to me. I can always add what I like.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Aug 21, 2002)

Mynex said:
			
		

> *And as we were told in no uncertain terms, buy using ANY OGC content we agreed, even unknowingly to abide by the OGL.  D20 is where are issues lay atm, since D20 compliancy requires that software not have any interactive points to it (like die rolling).
> 
> Since we DID fall under the OGL, and have since the very 1st data set we released, the issue does NOT revolve around OGL compliancy.  And yes, this information IS from Lawyers that understand OGL and Software, and it is FACT.  WE, as in the PCGen Team, did not understand this, and that is what caused so much confusion in the 1st place, that's OUR mistake.*




Why do you say "the issue does NOT revolve around OGL compliancy"?  It appears that PCGen is, or was, in violation of sections 2, 6, 8, and 10.  It did/does not:
* include the OGL and notice (§2, §10)
* maintain exclusivity due to the LGPL (§2)
* include an updated §15 (§6)
* clearly label OGC (§8)

I'm not trying to be hard on PCGen (hey, free software's great), but I do want to make sure the issue's resolved.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 21, 2002)

Mynex said:
			
		

> And as we were told in no uncertain terms, buy [sic] using ANY OGC content we agreed, even unknowingly to abide by the OGL.



Forgive me, but this statement is flat-out wrong.  It is quite possible to redistribute OGC without using the Open Game License.  To do so, you must follow normal copyright procedure.  I am fully within my rights to quote OGC as part of a review, scholarly discussion, etc. without complying with the OGL.

Remember, the Open Game License is subservient to copyright law.  It does not replace it (nor can it).  You may not reproduce copyrighted material without the consent of the owner (except in certain "fair use" instances such as review, scholarly discussion, etc.  

The Open Game License is a structure by which you may give open-ended permission for people to use your material (the Open Game Content).  Basically, it is a way to allow you to make it EASIER for people to use your stuff because you give open-ended permission to everyone, rather than requiring everyone to contact you individually for permission and to negotiate terms.  The OGL does NOT replace copyright law.  It operates within copyright law.  You grant permission with certain conditions (namely, that the other party also follow the Open Game License).  That doesn't mean you can't grant permission on a case-by-case basis with other conditions (or none at all).  My use of Open Game Content does NOT automatically mean I have to use the Open Gaming License... I can seek permission from the (original) copyright holder to use it under other terms if I wish (in fact, the OGL gives examples of this by noting that others' non-OGC content can be used (only) if express written permission is obtained - meaning that you can re-use non-OGC stuff if you comply with copyright law).

Just my 2 cents. I am not a lawyer, but it seems fairly clear that this is and always has been the intent and legal precedent/need for the Open Game License.

--The Sigil


----------



## Mynex (Aug 21, 2002)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Why do you say "the issue does NOT revolve around OGL compliancy"?  It appears that PCGen is, or was, in violation of sections 2, 6, 8, and 10.  It did/does not:
> * include the OGL and notice (§2, §10)
> ...




You are correct.  That is because we were under the mistaken notion that we were following copyright issues not OGL issues.

Since we have been informed that by using OGC content we unknowingly agreed to abide by the OGL.  Note, abiding is different then accepting the license.  That has been misconstrued as well by several people on this thread (and many like it).

Since we are now well aware that we have accepted the OGL, we are now working to abide and accept the license as well as the D20 license (which is related but seperate).

And we have a clear way to handle to the OGL license display/reprint/whatever you want to call it...

As for updating section 15, we make no changes to anything, only use the mechanics as they are presented in the works.  We are not making derivitive works, so there is nothing to update on that part (I may have that wrong, I'm still going over this stuff, and that part is particularly fuzzy for me, but Wizards is being very helpful on that front, so if I'm wrong, I'll correct myself).

As for the LPGL, you are mixing software and data... the code for PCGen falls under the LPGL and is what is/can/will be D20 Compliant, the data sets DO NOT fall under the LPGL, they are not code.  THOSE must be OGL compliant.

there is a clear delineation here, and that's what is tripping most people up.. there is the code, a dumb interface that does only/exactly what the data/list files tell it to do, and the data, which is human readable and editable, that tell the code what to do.

they are 2 different things people, please stop mixing them up, each one of them has different roles to play here in this overall issue.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 21, 2002)

Mynex said:
			
		

> However I do care that you are spreading lies and slandering the PCGen Team.




I feel a balance needs to be reached, and am using some spare time in which to balance out the world in this regard. I also agree and believe in the concepts of open source software, being a programmer it is an issue that is close to me. Now when I see someone taking a dump in my well I try to prevent that.

Pcgen is the bastard child here, there are other products not just e-tools like DM's Familar, Campaign Suite that are working within the rights that are allowed, all of them are hurt by pcgens abuse.



> No one makes any money from PCGen, NO ONE, by any means.




It seems you have a very liberal view of making money, I see a Support section on your website which leads to a paypal donation page. How many users have donated to the cause? How many users are specifically using pcgen because it "had" all the wotc materials they all use? How many have donated specifically because of that? Now tell me how many donations you would have recieved had you not made pcgen with all the wotc material? Benefiting from wotc material? I think so.




> You are NOT a lawyer, you have stated so previously.  So you are posting out of your a$$, like a great deal of your posts on this topic.




As a citizen its my duty to understand the laws in which I have to live, I don't profess to be a laywer and if you are looking for actual legal advice you would obviously consult a laywer. However, I do know quite a bit about the topic, and there is no harm in discussing the concept of copyright. In a free country with free speech we can discuss anything we wish, even things that "only a laywer" can advise on. 




> Congrats, you've finally hit my threshold for tolerating stupidity.
> 
> This will stop.  Now.




Cry more?

My intention was not to enflame, but to point out some real points in the discussion that are often overlooked by the pcgen fanboys. Wotc  isn't the enemy, pcgen is. It is pcgen who is now "fixing" their product, not wotc.


You're out of line anyway, I only wish you gave so much passion to your own, when they fill every board under the sun about pcgen. If you did the same for people with positive views about pcgen I would accept your sincerity.


----------



## Mynex (Aug 21, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I feel a balance needs to be reached, and am using some spare time in which to balance out the world in this regard. I also agree and believe in the concepts of open source software, being a programmer it is an issue that is close to me. Now when I see someone taking a dump in my well I try to prevent that.
> 
> ...




1) For your information, PCGen is not, has not, and will not violate the LPGL, so you're wrong.

2) You're trolling.  Very good, you got a bite from me.

3) As for donations, exactly zero.  That's how many people have donated, so that kinda deflates your point.  Since you had no idea before you were talking out your a$$ like everything else.

3) Obviously you missed several posts about it, but we ARE talking to lawyers, and to be a bit more specific, talking to the lawyers of Wizards and one of the lawyers who wrote that OGL license.  Gee, I guess we do know our standing, unlike you, who is armchair lawyering.

4) Your intention, like every other post is to troll.  You ARE slandering PCGen and the people who work on it.  You ARE coming from many false assumptions about things, as you obviously have a bone to pick with PCGen and the people who work on it.

As for my 'passion' I've checked people who go too far, I have no problem with going 'off' on people with extremist points of view.  I have said repeatedly there is no reason for competition between ANY of the softwares, in fact many of them work well together.  You continue to talk out of your a$$, enciting a reaction.

Well guess what troll boy, I have no fear or concern of coming back at you.   I am exactly what I say I am, in person or on the net.  I don't hide behind a keyboard spouting crap, and I'm perfectly willing to post my location in RL if you, or anyone would care to discuss it with me personally. 

So here's a thought for you, spend YOUR energy coding something better than PCGen, better than E-Tools, Better than any of the other software out there.  I'm perfectly willing to bet anyone that you can't do it.  That you would make a mistake somewhere, have an improper understanding of something, then you'd be the one 'fixing your product', you'd be the one someone was calling their product a 'Bastard Child'.


Put up or shut up.


----------



## Sm!rk (Aug 21, 2002)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *(e.g., not photocopying and redistributing books, but photocopying a section so he himself can highlight it)."*




This is a bit offtopic and I'll just say that generally I agree with your views on what it "means" and what it should "mean". It being copyright. But, as I said pcgen is not fighting for some noble purpose. They specifically want people to use their product, for personal fame, more donations I don't know, but its not to "free D&D and my 3rd lvl bard from the evil tyranny of WoTC".




> The rules that govern that are called "copyright law." ;-)




That was assumed, I saw no arguments that pcgen was a parody (but actually maybe it is, its a parody of bad UI design taken to the extreme.) or fair use.




> In legalese, there is the concept of a "contract of adhesion."  This is a contract where one party draws up the contract and the other party may sign or refuse to sign, but may not negotiate the terms.  The OGL is a contract of adhesion.  If there is any lack of




I doubt that highly. I could see that maybe for things in the core books that weren't in the SRD, but all their other products? 




> And we all know how popular the kid who takes his ball and goes home every time he starts to lose because someone plays the game better than he does is.




Yeah but as much as we disliked *that* kid, we hated the kid that stole the ball and popped more.





> They should have had the PCGen folks develop E-Tools or something.




Yeah, and with their 20 developers and 100+ other support staff it would have cost them 100 times more. OS works when the people working aren't paid, there is no reasonable commercial way to manage the same system. Except as a loss leader.




> You miss the point of Napster.  I will not tell you that every Napster user had the mentality of "this is my civil disobedience to spite the exploitation of copyright laws by media giants."




Yeah and when I was young I had the same self-delusion. RIAA and the MPAA are evil organizations, thats their charter, but music and movies are a buisness, so they do fight to protect that buisness. And that battle is already lost, because many people do go to stores and pay for the music. Those are the ones that decided that music on CDs were property, now since the majority of those people decided any other view is not the social norm.

By taking it without paying you aren't saying you don't agree with the view of property, you are saying that you still want the property, but don' want to pay for it. The people that truelly oppose RIAA are those that reject commerically sold music and buy independent, or sing in the back yard with bongos and guitars.


Think back on Thoreau, he choose to not pay some taxes, and he also opposed anyone else paying it for him. If he let others pay for him then it would just mean he was a cheap bastard, by also opposing that others pay in his stead he kept his ideals pure.  

You could also steal the music on napster and then send some money to the original artists (ie what you think its worth). You think anyone ever did that? Nope. So all of those arguments are false.




> Perhaps it is because they see copyright as a fundamental infringement upon their natural right to life, liberty, and property?




You are being very loose with logic here, a grocery withholding an apple from me as I die of starvation is impolite, or inhuman, but not infringment upon my natural right to live.




> Pirate: One who takes that which belongs to private entities and/or the public at large with the express permission of, and in collusion with, a (corrupt) government.  (This is the way 17th-century pirates worked.  It also happens to be the way modern media companies work as they take that which ought naturally to be in the public domain).




I used to share those views, but then I got a job and entered a world where bills aren't "the things my parents pay."
They are truer pirates in the real sense than thieves, but those terms are equivelant. Pirates took advantage of the open spaces of the oceans, they could get away with it because they could literally get away with it, where it is booty and such, you know pirate treasure. Software and other pirates today work on the same principles, copy protection is weak and easily defeated, there will come a time when that isnt true and you will see software piracy go away just as high seas piracy did.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Aug 21, 2002)

Mynex said:
			
		

> *As for updating section 15, we make no changes to anything, only use the mechanics as they are presented in the works.  We are not making derivitive works, so there is nothing to update on that part (I may have that wrong, I'm still going over this stuff, and that part is particularly fuzzy for me, but Wizards is being very helpful on that front, so if I'm wrong, I'll correct myself).
> 
> As for the LPGL, you are mixing software and data... the code for PCGen falls under the LPGL and is what is/can/will be D20 Compliant, the data sets DO NOT fall under the LPGL, they are not code.  THOSE must be OGL compliant.*




Ah, I see.  I understand the OGL/LGPL issue - is this mentioned in the documentation?  I guess it is now... sorry for bringing it up.

As for section 15, you included more than just the SRD, so you need to update it to include the other OGC.


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 21, 2002)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> *As for section 15, you included more than just the SRD, so you need to update it to include the other OGC. *



From what I know of the license, that's true.  However, would they need to do some dynamic additions to their OGL, or just have a static one that includes a compilation of all the S 15s from the OGC sources they use?


----------



## kingpaul (Aug 21, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> *Yeah, and with their 20 developers and 100+ other support staff it would have cost them 100 times more. OS works when the people working aren't paid, there is no reasonable commercial way to manage the same system. Except as a loss leader.*



I'm confused by this statement.  Are you saying the only viable OSs are the ones that are created by non-paid people?

As for paying the PCGen folks, it seems you're assuming (unless you know for certain) that they would demand high salaries.  Now, since I don't know what kind of payments they would be interested, its really impossible to say.


----------



## Mynex (Aug 21, 2002)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> *
> From what I know of the license, that's true.  However, would they need to do some dynamic additions to their OGL, or just have a static one that includes a compilation of all the S 15s from the OGC sources they use? *




This is still being looked into, but atm, apparantly, we can have the license itself pop up on startup of PCGen and in the Help About section of the menu items.

Not sure if we would be required to keep the licenses from each publisher up to date, I don't believe so, but as I said, that's being looked into.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 21, 2002)

Sm!rk said:
			
		

> I doubt that highly. I could see that maybe for things in the core books that weren't in the SRD, but all their other products?



I think I spelled it out specifically, maybe I didn't.  WotC books have no OGC and are not published under the OGL.  WotC *can* take issue with it.  I agree with you on that one.  A d20 publisher, whose stuff IS done under the OGL, may have difficulties.  Sorry if that was not clear.



> By taking it without paying you aren't saying you don't agree with the view of property, you are saying that you still want the property, but don' want to pay for it. The people that truelly oppose RIAA are those that reject commerically sold music and buy independent, or sing in the back yard with bongos and guitars.



I more or less fall into this category.  I do have scads of CDs with commercially recorded music - but all are at least 4-5 years old.  I no longer buy new ones, and have not for 4-5 years.  So I am trying truly to oppose the RIAA, a reversal of previous support.  But this is totally OT and I will say no more about it.



> You are being very loose with logic here, a grocery withholding an apple from me as I die of starvation is impolite, or inhuman, but not infringment upon my natural right to live.



Ah, but to take that apple without compensation is an infringement upon the grocery store's natural right to property.  You have the right to life, liberty, and property, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.  My personal definition (YMMV) of "infringing upon the property rights of others" is "any action that directly interferes with your ability to use - and strictly 'profit from' is not considered 'use' - your property."

Taking an apple from a grocery store directly infringes on their right to property.  A grocery store which owns an apple may do with the apple as they please (they may sell it, they may throw it away, they may make it into applesauce, etc.)  If I take it from them, I deny them the use of that apple.

Taking an idea, by contrast, does not directly infringe upon another's right to property.  A person who has an idea may do with it as he pleases - he may write it down, he may attempt to sell the writings, he may dictate it, he may stay silent, and so on.  My use of his idea in no way keeps him from doing any of these activities (though if he chooses to attempt to sell his writings, his profit margin may decline).  Therefore, stealing ideas is NOT an infringement on the rights of others (under my admittedly strict definition).

Note one thing there - you have the right to ATTEMPT to sell, but NOT the right to SELL, property.  There is *no guarantee* that people must buy from you.  The store may attempt to sell the apple, but there is no guarantee that they will.  

Therefore, taking and freely distributing your idea is NOT an infringement on your rights.  If you say, "you cut into my profits" - I point out that you were never guaranteed those profits in the first place.  Just as you can try to sell apples for $40 each, but don't go suing the grocery store for your "lost profits" when they sell them for (much) less.  It gets murky here with the concept of "my idea" but I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as "my idea" - merely discovering something first does not make it uniquely yours.



> I used to share those views, but then I got a job and entered a world where bills aren't "the things my parents pay."



If, by this, you are attempting to imply that I am an ignorant kid who still relies on his parents, you are incorrect.  I have a job, a wife, and a child.  I pay the bills.  I fail to see how this ought to change my ideological bent - unless, of course, I suddenly have a conflict of interest - IOW, if my job is to create my own "Intellectual Property" and sell it (more on this below).  That, to me, entails nothing less than "selling out" my ideals for money.  If I were to do that, I would be of all men most miserable.  

I refuse to change my ideals for convenience.  That's why they're ideals (not actions).  I may change the way I act for convenience - for instance, I do not "pirate" software and books and CDs because I don't want to be arrested and leave my wife and child hanging (I think doing so is a bigger moral wrong than to try to "fight the power" and rebel in act instead of in word and through attempts to fix laws I think are broken), but that doesn't mean I think "pirating" is inherently morally wrong.  I simply feel that my responsibility to my wife and child outweighs my desire to act in a manner that is illegal, especially when I can satisfy my conscience by not supporting organizations such as the RIAA.  I may not be actively fighting them, but at least I'm not supporting them either - and I can live with that.  My actions are born of expediency, while my ideals are born of... well... idealism.  Surely you understand the difference.  

However, I personally find it extraordinarily insulting that artists, writers, and other "creators of intellectual property" feel that their contributions are so valuable to the world that they ought to be able to do work once and be paid for it forever.  It's an elitist attitude that suggests that they feel the world somehow owes them for their "brilliance."  To me that is the height of laziness and greed.  Screw people who think the world owes them a living.

To continue receiving money over time, most of us in the economy are required to continue producing work over time.  You don't pay the plumber who installed your toilet a fee every time you flush it.  He is paid once for the initial work and gets no residuals.  You don't pay the doctor who set your broken arm every time you use that arm.  If the plumber wants to continue making money, he must continue to work and install more toilets.  If the doctor wants to make more money, he must continue to work and set broken arms.  In other words, "a continuous flow of money into your pocket requires a continuous expenditure of work on your part."

For some reason, the "owners" of "Intellectual Property" want to be above this concept.  They feel that a one-time expenditure of work (the writing of a book or drawing of a picture or recording of a song) should translate into a continuous flow of money.  Does anyone else find this elitist and/or insulting?  I say that those who create intellectual property should be asked to continue contributing work to society just like the rest of us.  

The closest thing that we see in the material world to this concept is that of "leasing" or "renting" of land/real estate property.  But this also requires a continued expenditure of work on the part of the landowner... if the land owner does not expend work maintaining and/or improving the land, it becomes unusable and his flow of income will stop (because he will have no tenant).

My suspicion - and I have no way to confirm this - is that you, Sm!rk, are among (or consider yourself among) the "creators" of "intellectual property."  You have a strong vested interest in the subject, rather than a strictly ideological one.  Of course a creator of intellectual property wants to be continuously paid for a one-time expenditure of work - who wouldn't?  However, unless you pay royalties to your plumber when you flush the toilet, to your dentist every time you eat, and so on, your "ideology" is every bit as hypocritical as you claim mine to be if I denounce the RIAA while purchasing their stuff (which I no longer do).

This is really no longer on-topic at all and should admittedly be taken to e-mail.  If you wish to e-mail me, please feel free to do so at the_sigil@hotmail.com .  Sorry if I sound a little hot, but as I said, the attitudes and assumptions of those who support Intellectual Property are usually a bit insulting to me.

Perhaps I have it wrong and you feel that there is a compelling moral or ethical reason for Intellectual Property that I don't know about.  If that is the case, I apologize for taking offense at your position.

--The Sigil


----------



## Mynex (Aug 22, 2002)

Mynex said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is still being looked into, but atm, apparantly, we can have the license itself pop up on startup of PCGen and in the Help About section of the menu items.
> 
> Not sure if we would be required to keep the licenses from each publisher up to date, I don't believe so, but as I said, that's being looked into. *




I have spoken with Anthony again and found out that for every publisher we add their data files to, we will need to update Article 15.  so that's resolved at least. 

And now we know, and knowing is half the battle. ;p


----------



## Callypsa (Aug 22, 2002)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *
> This is really no longer on-topic at all and should admittedly be taken to e-mail.  If you wish to e-mail me, please feel free to do so at the_sigil@hotmail.com .  Sorry if I sound a little hot, but as I said, the attitudes and assumptions of those who support Intellectual Property are usually a bit insulting to me.
> --The Sigil *




I agree this is indeed off topic, however, I propose moving this particular discussion to a different thread instead. To facilitate this move I am starting a thread in the d20 publishers forum titled "Can you own an idea?".

I will leave my response to your rather extreme views there, as well as gladly debate some of the finer points of your arguement.

Callypsa


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 23, 2002)

For all who have been complaining about PCGen and its use of copyrighted material I hope to see the same indignation and outrage over all of the e-tools file shareing sites that are poping up. On some of these sites I have seen non-WotC material begining to show up. I don't know for certain whether any of these publishers have yet given permission, but I myself have seen no such permissions yet.

Perhaps I am wrong again but my understanding is that since e-tools is not OGL (and need not be since it is put out by WotC) that the use of OGC material would not be covered by it. Or is it that anyone can use OGC material without permission, in which case lets stop complaining about PCGen doing it, and being far stricter in requiring permission (at least at the current time). If e-tools files can be distributed as OGC won't they have to follow the OGL requirements that PCGen is being required to?

I do hope that some of these sites will begin to understand what PCGen has been going through trying to get permissions and reach complience.


----------



## BardMorgan (Aug 23, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You are correct, and what they are choosing to do with it right now is allowing it to be freely distributed on the Internet. And once the cat is out of the bag...
> 
> PCGen for at least a very long time has made sure that they have permission for all thier material. With respect to the non-SRD WotC material they had unofficial permission from Ryan Dancey and continued after that to try to get official permission. It was only at GenCon that they finally had official talks and are now working to meet all the requirements that were laid out.*




Actually, they never had explicit permission from WotC... WotC simply let it stand without challenge.  WotC simply decided to make a stand...

I'm not sure what the law is on IP that's being encouraged in a particular format, but since there's no legal requirement to defend copyright, that may be moot.  As far as I know, a copyright holder can control exactly who and how has permission to use the materials...

Bard Morgan


----------



## Brent (Aug 23, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *For all who have been complaining about PCGen and its use of copyrighted material I hope to see the same indignation and outrage over all of the e-tools file shareing sites that are poping up. On some of these sites I have seen non-WotC material begining to show up... *




One difference is, the PCGen people were coding and distributing WotC material without their permission.  In your case above, it is fan created material.  You would have an argument if:

1.  WotC distributes non WotC material themselves (I doubt it)

or

2.  PCGen does not distribute WotC material, but fans do distribute WotC material in PCGen format.  I think PCGen is heading for the first part, but the fans will continue to do the second part.

When #2 happens, then you can judge WotC.  I don't think WotC will jump on individual fans for distributing stuff in eTools, PCGen (or even NWN) format.  They will work to resolve issues with groups the size of PCGen (or even Morus for that matter).


----------



## smetzger (Aug 23, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *For all who have been complaining about PCGen and its use of copyrighted material I hope to see the same indignation and outrage over all of the e-tools file shareing sites that are poping up. On some of these sites I have seen non-WotC material begining to show up. I don't know for certain whether any of these publishers have yet given permission, but I myself have seen no such permissions yet.
> 
> *




True anyone that posts copyrighted material without the copyright holders explicit permission is in violation of copyright law.  As far as I know WOTC has not given permission for non-OGC WOTC material to be distributed in e-tools compatable format.  I also have not heard of any other copyright holders giving permission to have their material distributed in e-tools format.

Also, if you distribute OGC material in e-tools format you need to include a copy of the OGL with the correct info filled in for section 15 with that material; otherwise you are in violation of the OGL.

Another thing to consider is that the e-tools helper is not a WOTC product.  The files it produces are not e-tools format files.  The e-tools helper creator could have used the PCGen .lst file format instead of XML.  Would have been much more difficult and the .lst file might not be 100% compatable with PCGen, but it is a possibility.

However, I don't believe anyone who is distributing these files have explicitly said they are doing so legally.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 23, 2002)

My original question was not directed at PCGen, but in general whether a company (in this case) WotC was allowed to prevent its copyrighted material from being freely distributed in only one file format. The answer apparently is yes. My question was related to whether I or other fans not related to PCGen were now allowed to distribute this material in PCGen format. The answer was no, since WotC was not allowing the distribution in PCGen format.

My more recent point is I am now seeing non-WotC material showing up on these sites (and I mean material that was published by others and not individual fan creations). I would like for whoever complains about PCGen distributing material without permission to look at these other sites as well and hold them to the same standards for aquiring permission. I am not complaining about WotC material being distributed, since they seem to be allowing it. But I have seen nothing that implies that Bastion Press, Sword & Scorcery, Necromancer games, Malhavoc Press or anyone else has given permission for thier files to be distributed in e-tools format. If by being OGC no permission is needed then remember that PCGen could use this standard as well but actualy has higher standards. 

I will put in a good word for WotC since I have not yet noticed any non-WotC material being distributed on thier boards.


----------



## smetzger (Aug 23, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *  If by being OGC no permission is needed then remember that PCGen could use this standard as well but actualy has higher standards.  *




To be OGC compliant you basically need to clearly identify open content, include a copy of the OGL, and update section 15 of the OGL to credit the proper copyright holders.  Just because its OGC doesn't mean you are allowed to skip this things.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Aug 23, 2002)

smetzger said:
			
		

> *
> 
> To be OGC compliant you basically need to clearly identify open content, include a copy of the OGL, and update section 15 of the OGL to credit the proper copyright holders.  Just because its OGC doesn't mean you are allowed to skip this things. *




Since e-tools is not OGC compliant (and need not be) if it includes other OGC material is it breaking the rules? If it doesn't have to because the  OGC data files are not released by WotC, do the fans need to follow OGC rules?


----------



## Arnix (Aug 23, 2002)

This thread has turned into a flame war, and as such I usually avoid posting so deep.

However (love these don't ya), 

The data that was provided with PCGen that was WoTC copyrighted material, was less information than you would find in a college thesis paper.  Frequently, the data amounted to as much as you might find in that thesis' bibliography; Name, Page Number, Book Name, Publisher.  The listing of Prereqs are the only things that seemed out of line, but those were game mechanic related, and assumed uncopyrightable (see one fo the above posts for more on this part).

People seem to assume that PCGen practically scanned in the entire WoTC catalog and put it out for public distribution.  This is NOT the case.

I encourage anyone who has questiosn on this to read PCGen's listserve hsitory.  This has been covered in GREAT detail, and at great length.

Arnix (tm)


----------



## smetzger (Aug 23, 2002)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Since e-tools is not OGC compliant (and need not be) if it includes other OGC material is it breaking the rules?*




If other OGC material is included with a distributed copy of e-tools than in general yes the law has been broken. Since e-tools is a WOTC product they would have to do one of the following in order to legally distribute e-tools with 3rd party OGC material:
1) Get explicite permission from the 3rd party to distribute the OGC material in a non OGL product.
2) Follow the OGL for this OGC material.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> *If it doesn't have to because the  OGC data files are not released by WotC, do the fans need to follow OGC rules? *




Anyone distributing OGC material is supposed to follow the same rules.


----------

