# What's up with PCGen???



## antpasq (Nov 19, 2003)

What is going on with PCGen? I am completely lost when I read their message boards. Has anyone who prepaid for datasets received them? Is PCGen current with 3.5? Is any part of PCGen still free? Any info would help. When reading their boards I get lost in all the infighting, the legalesse, and the programmer-only posts.
Thanks


----------



## Zub (Nov 20, 2003)

PCGen is in the process of self-destrucing right now.  You got on one side list programmers who want control over their lists until they say it's perfect and release it to PCGen's source forge repository.  On the other side is, I guess, everyone else.  They've been fed up with the slow pace of new data sources while the rest of PCGen has advanced along nicely.

Add to that, some of the list monkeys seem to distrust CMP, and are concerned that the work they donated for free might make it into CMP's comerical products.  Feeding that, some list monkeys who did do work for CMP haven't been paid yet, despite the pre-order money that CMP recieved.
I'm sure I'm over simplifying everything here.  In a week or so, We'll see where the dust settles.  Maybe something good will come out this and PCGen can get close to being as useful as it was when pre-3.0.

BTW, PCGen doesn't sell datasets.  Currently, only CMP does.  I don't know what their status is.



			
				antpasq said:
			
		

> What is going on with PCGen? I am completely lost when I read their message boards. Has anyone who prepaid for datasets received them? Is PCGen current with 3.5? Is any part of PCGen still free? Any info would help. When reading their boards I get lost in all the infighting, the legalesse, and the programmer-only posts.
> Thanks


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 20, 2003)

To be fair, I think the whole "self-destruct" isn't really one at all.

WotC pulled a pretty nasty, but clever, move when they hired CMP to take over on e-Tools, effectively triggering the downfall of PCGen.  Add to the fact that they reneged on their claim they'd let PCGen include their non-SRD stuff, and it's very obvious that the whole thing was designed to take out their main competition on e-Tools and get the thier own program working.

Not that Fluid didn't do a decent job, but they were woefully under-experienced for such a program, IMO.


----------



## SJ (Nov 20, 2003)

WOTC may be much more clever than I give them credit for, but my take on the e-Tools thing was more along the lines of 'let's find somebody capable to fix/support this tool, cause we can't do it and neither can Fluid." But LP may be right, and they actually hatched a canny plan to torpedo PCGen.

In any event, as a long-time user, I agree that the board is pretty noisy right now. I say wait around and you will in fact see 3.5 rsrd for PCGen, but it won't be real soon.

Of course, e-tools is due for the 3.5 dataset release and a fresh patch as well. Even with RPM, CS, DMG, and others out there, I feel there's still demand for functional gaming assistant tools of all kinds. Especially community projects like PCGen. A community can really make a program like that. And unfortunately, a community can flush it.


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

antpasq said:
			
		

> What is going on with PCGen? I am completely lost when I read their message boards. Has anyone who prepaid for datasets received them? Is PCGen current with 3.5? Is any part of PCGen still free? Any info would help. When reading their boards I get lost in all the infighting, the legalesse, and the programmer-only posts.
> Thanks



Alright, I'll try to tackle your questions:


The Data SB resigned on Sunday night's Board of Director meeting.  From what I've gathered, its, primarily, over the issue of who owns the dataset.  Others who have other insights/opinions, please feel free to comment.
PCGen does not charge for datasets, so there is no pre-paying for them.
PCGen is developing the RSRD, which is the OGC content of 3.5.  The in-work files can be found here.
PCGen is a free program.

Does that help?


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> To be fair, I think the whole "self-destruct" isn't really one at all.



I agree.


			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> WotC pulled a pretty nasty, but clever, move when they hired CMP to take over on e-Tools, effectively triggering the downfall of PCGen.



How did this trigger the downfall of PCGen?  I'm confused by your statement.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Nov 20, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> How did this trigger the downfall of PCGen? I'm confused by your statement.



Very simply.  It created a conflict of interest for CMP, and a conflict of ideology in the community.  The former is obvious - support a product for pay, or support one for nothing?  The latter is evident in what is happening now.

I don't know if the whole thing was deliberate, but it was pretty darn convenient for WotC.  Being the cynic I am, I tend to think that it was deliberate, but that's just me.


----------



## antpasq (Nov 20, 2003)

I understand that PCGen doesn't charge for datasets. I meant the sets sold on CMP site. Has anyone rec'd any of these sets?



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> Alright, I'll try to tackle your questions:
> 
> 
> The Data SB resigned on Sunday night's Board of Director meeting.  From what I've gathered, its, primarily, over the issue of who owns the dataset.  Others who have other insights/opinions, please feel free to comment.
> ...


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

antpasq said:
			
		

> I understand that PCGen doesn't charge for datasets. I meant the sets sold on CMP site. Has anyone rec'd any of these sets?



Well, here is a link to the most recent news item about the data sets.  I have received mine (both eTools and PCGen), as have numerous other users.  Have you not received yours?  If not, you need to email customer.service@codemonkeupublsihing.com .


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Very simply.  It created a conflict of interest for CMP, and a conflict of ideology in the community.  The former is obvious - support a product for pay, or support one for nothing?  The latter is evident in what is happening now.



What conflict of interest?  Who is supporting what?  CMP has staff that support their endeavors. PCGen is supported by a host of volunteers (including me) who support it.


----------



## KenM (Nov 20, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> What conflict of interest?




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


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

KenM said:
			
		

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



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

I ask again, what conflict of interest?


----------



## tburdett (Nov 20, 2003)

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

tburdett said:
			
		

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



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


			
				tburdett said:
			
		

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



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


			
				tburdett said:
			
		

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



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


			
				tburdett said:
			
		

> CMP benefits while PCGen declines.



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


			
				tburdett said:
			
		

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



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

Has that cleared anything up for you?


----------



## d20books (Nov 20, 2003)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## tburdett (Nov 20, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

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



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



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

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



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



> Has that cleared anything up for you?



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


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

d20books said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

d20books said:
			
		

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



Hunh?  Harassed?  Why do you say that?


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

d20books said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## gariig (Nov 20, 2003)

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

Gariig


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

gariig said:
			
		

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



Then what, in your opinion, could be done to help alleviate that perception?


----------



## Zub (Nov 20, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Then what, in your opinion, could be done to help alleviate that perception?




Bryan and Bob resigning from the BoD would convince me.

CMP forking the code and going their own way would convince me as well.


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

Zub said:
			
		

> Bryan and Bob resigning from the BoD would convince me.



Why only those two?


			
				Zub said:
			
		

> CMP forking the code and going their own way would convince me as well.



What do you mean CMP forking the code?  The don't write code for PCGen at all.  They produced for-pay datasets for PCGen, but the don't do the code.


----------



## smetzger (Nov 20, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> CMP and PCGen are separate entities though.  Yes, there is some overlap in the leadership, but they are separate entities.
> 
> I ask again, what conflict of interest?




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


----------



## d20books (Nov 20, 2003)

*I did say one post and I actually mean it.*

The title to my posting was: My SINGLE post, email me off-forums if you want to continue.

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


----------



## Zub (Nov 20, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Why only those two?




Because those are the two who run CMP.



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

> What do you mean CMP forking the code?  The don't write code for PCGen at all.  They produced for-pay datasets for PCGen, but the don't do the code.



They [CMP] don't currently write PCGen code, but they certainly have the ability to, considering they were able to fix E-Tools plus the obvious fact that Bryan runs CMP yet contributes code to PCGen.


----------



## soulcatcher (Nov 20, 2003)

d20books said:
			
		

> The title to my posting was: My SINGLE post, email me off-forums if you want to continue.
> 
> The only thing I'll comment on is that I've been accused of  being a malcontent stirring up trouble where there is no trouble about the conflict of interest between CMP and PCGen.  I don't know any of these people here on this forum and they have the same feelings as I do.  I'm not alone.  PCGen and CMP denying that there is an issue and refusing to eleviate the problem simply reinforces this view of the conflict of interest.




And that's the problem.  You throw stones, yet refuse to engange in any meaningful dialog.  I have approached you, as have others, many times. Every time a person brings up a discussion point all you do is drop back, refuse to address any of the discussion points, and martyr yourself like you did in this statement. "I've been accused of...."

You are looking for legal documents, and you damn well know that pcgen can't sign any because they are not a legal entity.


You are looking for the BoD or CMP to address your issues....and you have had a chance to talk directly with every member of the BoD, and every owenr of CMP, and any time any of us apporach you all you do is spit on us, and viciously attack our characters - even those non CMP members of the board.

You have asked us questions, and we have answered them, yet you refuse to acknowledge our answers were even given. (What special rights does CMP have, answer none - they have to go through the same processes as any other company)

You forget that half the BoD has no relationship at all to CMP, and 2 of the ones that do don't have any real financial interest in it (including the one you added to your document).

You forget that NONE of the BoD seconds have a CMP relationship - that means the extended BoD (instead of 10 people, roughly 20) vastly outweighs CMP related individuals (15 to 5 with any interest, 17 to 3 with real stakes).

Go on, ignore this post like you have every other one of my responses to you.

Soulcatcher (Devon Jones)
GMGen Silverback
PCGen BoD


----------



## soulcatcher (Nov 20, 2003)

gariig said:
			
		

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




You ignore that there are a significant number of non CMP BoD members.  As I mentioned in another post, 3 BoD members have a real stake in CMP, 1 does their web hosting (and is unaffiliated enough that he was the one that LMC wanted to add to their board as well), 1 is a paid contractor to do data sets.  5 members have no CMP affiliation, and of the roughly 10 BoD seconds, as far as I know, ZERO have a CMP affiliation.

We all (BoD Members) have one vote. and the seconds still participate in the talking points.

If CMP desired to do anything negative to pcgen, non CMP people have a quarum.  Period.  I might add that Mynex's (one of the CMP board members) votes have been shut down more then once, and he has obeyed the decision of the BoD.

CMP goes through the same processes any company that want's a bug fix (and yes, other publishers want bug fixes/freqs) or data added.

People seem to forget that there is a BOARD, it's not just Bryan and Rob. If you want a pcgen that is strong, then support the BoD, and bring us your issues.  We ARE here for that.  We do have equal voting power.

Soulcatcher (Devon Jones)
GMGen Silverback
PCGen BoD


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

Zub said:
			
		

> Because those are the two who run CMP.



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

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

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

Jason "Lone Jedi" Buchanon
*PCGen Code SB
*CMP co-founder

Michale Beaver
*PCGen Publisher Liaison SB
*hosts CMP on the web

Chris "Barak" Chandler
*PCGen Output Sheet SB
*CMP contractor

Martijn "Karianna"
*PCGen Tracker Monkey SB

Paul W. King
*PCGen OGL SB

Devon
*PCGen GMGen SB

Doug
*PCGen Data SB

Shane
*PCGen Docs SB

As yoiu can see, 5 have affiliations, 5 don't.  And, as Devon has mentioned below, all of our 2nds are on the BoD group as well, and, to my knowledge, none of them have CMP affiliations.


			
				Zub said:
			
		

> They [CMP] don't currently write PCGen code, but they certainly have the ability to, considering they were able to fix E-Tools plus the obvious fact that Bryan runs CMP yet contributes code to PCGen.



And what does coding expertise have to do with being able to fork the code?  PCGen is an LGPL project.  Anyone can fork the code if they so desire.  Also, what does Bryan's status of a CMP co-founder have to do with the fact that he's also a data monkey with PCGen?  PCGen code is open source.  I'm having difficulty understanding your position.


----------



## d20books (Nov 20, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> And that's the problem.  You throw stones, yet refuse to engange in any meaningful dialog.  I have approached you, as have others, many times. Every time a person brings up a discussion point all you do is drop back, refuse to address any of the discussion points, and martyr yourself like you did in this statement. "I've been accused of...."
> 
> You are looking for legal documents, and you damn well know that pcgen can't sign any because they are not a legal entity.
> 
> ...




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



			
				soulcatcher said:
			
		

> You have asked us questions, and we have answered them, yet you refuse to acknowledge our answers were even given. (What special rights does CMP have, answer none - they have to go through the same processes as any other company)




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



			
				soulcatcher said:
			
		

> You forget that half the BoD has no relationship at all to CMP, and 2 of the ones that do don't have any real financial interest in it (including the one you added to your document).
> 
> You forget that NONE of the BoD seconds have a CMP relationship - that means the extended BoD (instead of 10 people, roughly 20) vastly outweighs CMP related individuals (15 to 5 with any interest, 17 to 3 with real stakes).
> 
> ...




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


----------



## Zub (Nov 20, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Umm...no.  Here's the BoD breakdown.  I'll include a mix of real names and handles, as I'm on the road and don't have all my notes in front of me.
> 
> Bryan "Merton Monk" McRoberts
> *PCGen Benevloent Dictator
> ...




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



			
				kingpaul said:
			
		

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




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

That would absolutely convince me they were seperate.


----------



## soulcatcher (Nov 20, 2003)

Zub said:
			
		

> When people think of CMP, I'll bet those are the two people that come to mind.
> 
> Exactly my point.  They can fork the code.  CMP cuts off all ties with PCGen and they go their own way completely.  CMP changes the software however they want so that it meets their needs. PCGen changes the software however they want to meet their own needs.  If one team codes something cool, then the other can take it and incorporate it in their own since the source code will remain available.
> 
> That would absolutely convince me they were seperate.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soulcatcher


----------



## soulcatcher (Nov 20, 2003)

d20books said:
			
		

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




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

from the pcgen Y! forum: 

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

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

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

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



			
				d20books said:
			
		

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




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



			
				d20books said:
			
		

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




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



			
				d20books said:
			
		

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




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

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


----------



## Zub (Nov 20, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

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




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

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

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


----------



## Mynex (Nov 20, 2003)

d20books said:
			
		

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




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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Henry (Nov 20, 2003)

Hi, all.

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

1) No personal attacks.

2) No provocation of other posters.

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


----------



## Henry (Nov 20, 2003)

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

One question:

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

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


----------



## soulcatcher (Nov 20, 2003)

Henry said:
			
		

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




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



			
				Henry said:
			
		

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




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

Soulcatcher


----------



## d20books (Nov 20, 2003)

Zub said:
			
		

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




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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## jujutsunerd (Nov 20, 2003)

smetzger said:
			
		

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




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

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

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


----------



## d20books (Nov 20, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> No, you have attacked mynex, but you have also insulted every member of the board.
> 
> from the pcgen Y! forum:
> 
> ...



And how is this a false statement?  Given the replies to this forum, it looks to be a very true statement.


			
				soulcatcher said:
			
		

> Your impelcation here is clear, and you attack every member of the board in this statement.  This statement says in not so many words that none of us A) earned our positions, but were given them because we were some how CMP friendly, and B) none of us have any integrity, because we are somehow CMP stooges and will do what is good for CMP over what is good for PCGen.
> 
> Your refusal to deliniate between the different parties in the BoD is insulting, intentionally derrogatory and hurtful.
> 
> Very few things make me angry, someone intentionally questioning my integrity with nothing to back it up is one of them.



If you want to carry that weight, go ahead.  If combining CMP and the PCGen BoD is so hurtful to you, you should be on the bandwagon to creating the documents that I've been asking for for a long time now.


			
				soulcatcher said:
			
		

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



You and others have responded like you have in this forum, "There is no conflict of interest."



			
				soulcatcher said:
			
		

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



You guys have secret_reporter, I have ears in places too.  I know what is said about me.  The difference is that I'm not as sensative about it as you seem to be about my comments.


			
				soulcatcher said:
			
		

> Since it's clear the only thing that will make you happy is pcgen creating a wall that states CMP is not allowed to do anything related to pcgen, it's kind of hard to solve your problems.
> 
> Solutions require people to meet in the middle, not run to the fringe, and refuse to move.



Well, as stated, the Docs Silverback came forward to create the documents that I've requested.  Creating a guideline on how all Third-Party Organizations interact with PCGen will clearly outline the boundries of any perceived control CMP has over the PCGen BoD.  I'm still in contact with that Docs SB trying to get some action on the proposed documents and trying to get Bryan to admit that CMP is a Third Party organization and sit down with me to create the document.  Nothing has happened.  I'm not sure which fringe you're referring to.


----------



## d20books (Nov 20, 2003)

jujutsunerd said:
			
		

> More like having key players in Sun on the leadership for Open Office. Or key players in Netscape on the leadership for Mozilla. Both of which are obviously unthinkably evil as well as unthinkably impossible.
> 
> Oh, wait. Both those are true. Ah well. There went my conspiracy theory. (Or was it yours? ;-)
> 
> /Jonas, who is cheap enough that he uses Open Office rather than Star Office and sane enough that he uses Mozilla rather than Netscape.




The difference is that those organizations have a formalized set of interactions.  Sun cannot make any interactions with Open Office that are not prescribed precisely the same for all third-parties.  There is no exclusivity.

The Sun leadership is also not allowed to represent Sun when interacting with Open Office and the Sun leadership cannot represent Open Office when Open office is responding or reacting to Sun.

Given these two key differences, people can look at all the rules and watchdog the interactions for conflict of interests.


----------



## LetohNereg (Nov 20, 2003)

Zub said:
			
		

> PCGen is in the process of self-destrucing right now.




If you look carefully between the debate posts (normal for any organisation of PCGen's size) you will see that business is as usual.

All reported user problems were answered and code fixes made where necessary. If you look at the number of trackers fixed since the last release, a huge amount of work was done:

Total issues resolved by group:
Doc Monkeys: 51
Code Monkeys: 45
Data Monkeys: 19
OS Monkeys: 6

And the release of a merged PCGen & GMGen product is a very exiting development!

The foreground discussion is very improtant to the growth of PCGen and some very valid concerns have been raised. These will be dealt with by the PCGen community over time and the project will continue   



			
				d20books said:
			
		

> One of the PCGen Doc Monkeys is willing to sit down and address my concerns over a procedural document about how third party organizations interacts with the PCGen governing body. Partly, this was to help the non-profit but also to outline and draw clear lines between PCGen and CMP. I cannot get "Merton_Monk" to even admit that CMP is a third-party organization. I specifically want to sit down with Merton and the Doc Monkey so that this can be resolved.




I am the mentioned monkey and I am very serious about documenting all relationships, agreements and licences that the community holds. I am happy that Jeff is still happy to contibute as from his last post privately to me he had indicated he couldn't contribute due to his formation of the Non-profit group.

What I need from Jeff is an example of what is required within such a document to satisfy him.

I am in disagreement to those who think that CMP board members constitute a conflict of interests. One of my businesses is an Australian based RPG shop. I admit that one of the reasons I participate so heavily within PCGen is so I can find new customers for my shop. This does not stop me from putting lots of hours into the project, but some would say that I have a conflict of interest. Others have similar side issues and reasons for taking part. I don't see that this matters as long as the PCGen community benefits.


I have the postion of Documantation Silverback due to the fact that I have and do contribute more to the documentation than anyone else currently does. Eddy Anthony currently is closing that gap with the immense amount of work he has put into the List section of the documentation of late and if he out contributed me consistently and wanted the Silverback postion, I would make a recommendation to the BoD that I be replaced as that would be best for the PCGen community (This is unlikely to happen as Eddy does not currently want the extra reponsibility and time commitment that the SB represents). Eddy is currently the Doc team Second in Charge (and a very good one at theat   ).

I feel that the BoD is representative of the PCGen community and the model of having the biggest contributor who wants to do the administrative stuff in control of the team is much better than having the most charismatic (and maybe less technically able) person sitting in the seat for the power and glory.

As GMGen has no real documentation at this stage, I am putting out a call to any PCGen user (or past Documentation Monkeys) to assist and leave your own personal mark within the thing that is PCGen. Email me if interested!

It is business as usual at the best RPG Character and GM tools software that is PCGen. We will continue to grow and add user requested features as time rolls along.

Happy gaming!


----------



## soulcatcher (Nov 20, 2003)

d20books said:
			
		

> The difference is that those organizations have a formalized set of interactions.  Sun cannot make any interactions with Open Office that are not prescribed precisely the same for all third-parties.  There is no exclusivity.
> 
> The Sun leadership is also not allowed to represent Sun when interacting with Open Office and the Sun leadership cannot represent Open Office when Open office is responding or reacting to Sun.
> 
> Given these two key differences, people can look at all the rules and watchdog the interactions for conflict of interests.




That is completly wrong.  Sun ships a closed source version of open office called "Star Office".  no one else can do this.

Also, a very large percent of the Open Office developers are sun employees.

Sun has exclusivity where CMP does not.  CMP couldn't distribute a closed source PCGen if they wanted to - to many people have  copyrights in the code.

Sorry, but you just prooved our point.  in every one of those cases (Sun/Open Office, Netscape/Mozilla) the corperation has special privlages to release a closed app based on the code base.  And these are some of the most successful OSS projects in the world.

CMP has no special rights.  None.  If you don't like that answer, sorry, cause it's the only one there is.  What, do you want the BoD to vote to give CMP extra rights so that you can have some to point to?

Soulcatcher


----------



## d20books (Nov 20, 2003)

LetohNereg said:
			
		

> I am the mentioned monkey and I am very serious about documenting all relationships, agreements and licences that the community holds. I am happy that Jeff is still happy to contibute as from his last post privately to me he had indicated he couldn't contribute due to his formation of the Non-profit group.
> 
> What I need from Jeff is an example of what is required within such a document to satisfy him.




I'm working on that too.  It is hard to trace anything that goes on between CMP and the PCGen BoD in this given situation.  I need to fully understand how CMP works with PCGen right now and no one really knows.  This is what is the root of the conflict of interest speculations and why I want to create a formalized document to regulate that interaction.  It can then be recorded and auditable.  People can see the interactions between CMP and PCGen and can then say definitively that there is a conflict of interest or not.

Since I want to create a Third-Party organization myself, sitting down with Shane to draft this document would be a clear conflict of interest.  Sitting down with Bryan and working on a document together that will regulate BOTH of our organization's interactions would be entirely more acceptible.  Considering how there is conflict between Bryan and me, there would be no speculation about the two of us conspiring together.


----------



## Mynex (Nov 20, 2003)

*Some things to consider (Long post)*

1) PCGen wouldn't be around to argue about if not for Bryan and Jonas who started the SF project.

2) The 3 of us that own CMP have worked for a very long time on PCGen, we know how it works and how to specify exactly what's needed to support something.
     a) Any feature request we make are geared to enhance the entire project of PCGen, not just for CMP.  The more features CMP needs, the more of those that get added into PCGen, the more functionality PCGen has.  
          i) Given that line of thought - it seems almost stupid for CMP to make feature requests to support data sets we sell, why should we if the users can enter their own with the enhanced functionality?  So why would we then?  Our service is that, a service, a time saver for the users, nothing more.

3) If Joe Publishers comes in and say "I want my book 'Y of Z' put into PCGen, that doesn't indicate any possible data creation issues - If CMP puts in a feature request for something, it's going to be spefic enough for the data folk to work from immediately instead of getting started and then having to stop and wait for a code request.

4) CMP requests have not taken any resources away from PCGen development.  In fact, the code, the docs, and the output sheets have been developed at an impressive rate while data has stagnated over concerns of 'data creation theft' by CMP... which leads me to point 5.

5) CMP uses _NOTHING_ from free volunteer work.  EVERTHING is done from the ground up, game mode, bio settings, kits, classes, etc... This point has been made repetedly and often, yet no one seems to want to believe it.  *shrug*  Not my problem if you don't believe it.  
     1) It is the PCGen communities problem that it's not believed.  
          i) Why theirs?  Because no new sources get into PCGen for them to use.
     2) It is the publishers problem that it's not believed.
          i) Their material isn't added to PCGen for the users to experiment with and possibly go buy.

6) It's been stated that CMP and PCGen are at cross odds because we both produce data sets, one for free and one for pay.  It's been said that because some of the sets we have on pre-order are OGC only that that something fishy is going on here.
     1) Yes there are some agreements we have with publishers that cover OGC only products.  Why?  Because with an agreement we can do additonal things with that OGC material that PCGen can't.  Like Help files with the book contents.  Like tying the material in PCGen's GUI to said help files for quick lookup on something.  Because of said agreements, we can (in some cases) include portrait art for people to select in their character descriptions.

There are a lot of reasons why PCGen and CMP can do the same sets, none that I can see (and please correct me if I am wrong) that they can not.

7) The Board of Directors of PCGen tried to steal a data monkeys work!  *sigh* This is a long one to go over, so I'll try to summarize;  AEG has specific items that are IP of WotC, used with WotC's permission.  Since hese items belong to WotC, WotC can decide what is allowable with them.  It was determined that either the publisher or CMP could host them, since both had permission to.  Since the items were not OGC they could not be released in the PCGen official releases.  Conversations ensued, lack of communication happened, and the BoD demanded that the (at the time) Data Team Lead turn over said files to the BoD so we could get them hosted on CMP in the free file section to get them out to people.  The basic confusion came down to 1 conversation at GenCon that said AEG would host em, another that said they wouldn't, and yet more communication behind the Boards back that came back to yes they would.  This last communication was _never_ told to the BoD, so there was no way to verify, we had no knowledge of, so could do nothing about.  The other issue was the data monkey that had worked on the files.  the (at the time) Data Team Lead made claim that the data monkey  that worked the files did not wish them release on CMP's site.  There was a level of mistrust of the (at the time) Data Team Lead that could not be surmounted, the data monkey could not be reached (And how we tried), and another Board member that had been there for the conversation with the data monkey didn't think to pipe up that he'd heard this (he had also missed several meetings where this came up, real life duties and all that).

So the Board demanded that the (at the time) Data Team Lead turn over the files, that we'd post them to the CMP site so people could get to themand we would continue building new versions of the sets.  If at any time the original data monkey popped back up and let his wishes be known, we would honor those wishes.

The reason that came to a head was the publisher asking frequently when the files would be released and the fact we couldn't get a hold of the original data monkey for nearly 4 months (Real life got him as well).

There's a lot more, but my fingers are tired.  If people want to know more, I'd recommend wading through the posts on the main Y! PCGen boards... Or ask specific questions and I will attempt to answer them.


----------



## soulcatcher (Nov 20, 2003)

d20books said:
			
		

> And how is this a false statement?  Given the replies to this forum, it looks to be a very true statement.
> 
> If you want to carry that weight, go ahead.  If combining CMP and the PCGen BoD is so hurtful to you, you should be on the bandwagon to creating the documents that I've been asking for for a long time now.




Interesting, so by not thinking the situation is untennable, I and the rest of the BoD might as well be CMP.

once again you insult our integrity by implying that we are intentionally not working for the betterment of PCGen.



			
				d20books said:
			
		

> You and others have responded like you have in this forum, "There is no conflict of interest."




No, if you actually read our posts you would see that we are saying the conflict of interest is not a problem, because it's managable y the non CMP members of the board.  We have also stated that CMP gains no special rights, which you basically refuse to believe, despite evidence galore.  Hell, your own comment about Sun and OOo show exactly what we mean.  CMP can't distribute a close pcgen, like Sun can for Open Office (called Star Office).  The 5 of us non CMP people ensure it stays that way.



			
				d20books said:
			
		

> You guys have secret_reporter, I have ears in places too.  I know what is said about me.  The difference is that I'm not as sensative about it as you seem to be about my comments.




I don't take well to someone attacking my integrity, and I don't take well to your blanket statements.  Call me names, say things about my mother whatever - my integrity is important to me.



			
				d20books said:
			
		

> Well, as stated, the Docs Silverback came forward to create the documents that I've requested.  Creating a guideline on how all Third-Party Organizations interact with PCGen will clearly outline the boundries of any perceived control CMP has over the PCGen BoD.  I'm still in contact with that Docs SB trying to get some action on the proposed documents and trying to get Bryan to admit that CMP is a Third Party organization and sit down with me to create the document.  Nothing has happened.  I'm not sure which fringe you're referring to.




great, you get a document that says the same thing that has been said over and over - that pcgen has no special relationship with CMP.  The document is unenforcable as pcgen is not a legal entity, and that is the status quo already.

The fact that you seem to be continually seeking to tear down PCGen to eliminate any traces of people who work for CMP.  The fact that you have demanded rights for the list monkies in pcgen that no other contributors get, nor ask for - rights that would allow any LM to essentially destroy pcgen.  All a LM has to do si check in changes to every data file in the system, and then demand that removal of all their stuff, and that's it - pcgen has no data.  We can't unravel that, and I think you know that.  IMHO you want that power so that you can dictate terms to the rest of the community under threat of requiring us to trash all the data.

You have sought to destroy a project I care for, that is why I fight you.

Soulcatcher


----------



## Mynex (Nov 20, 2003)

d20books said:
			
		

> I'm working on that too.  It is hard to trace anything that goes on between CMP and the PCGen BoD in this given situation.  I need to fully understand how CMP works with PCGen right now and no one really knows.




The answers have been given to all questions give to us.  That's all it takes.  Seems people miss that point in their desire to vilify us.



> This is what is the root of the conflict of interest speculations and why I want to create a formalized document to regulate that interaction.  It can then be recorded and auditable.  People can see the interactions between CMP and PCGen and can then say definitively that there is a conflict of interest or not.




This has only been brought up recently to do this type of thing, I'm most certainly not opposed to it, it would simply show what we've been saying all along.



> Since I want to create a Third-Party organization myself, sitting down with Shane to draft this document would be a clear conflict of interest.  Sitting down with Bryan and working on a document together that will regulate BOTH of our organization's interactions would be entirely more acceptible.  Considering how there is conflict between Bryan and me, there would be no speculation about the two of us conspiring together.




*snort* given that line of thought, I'd be an even better choice, wouldn't I?


----------



## Zub (Nov 20, 2003)

I don't think most PCGen users care about CMP, or the BoD.  I think what they care about is the data.  I think for too long we kept reading that CMP was becoming the sole source for data files from this or that publisher, while at the same time, PCGen itself had fewer sources then it did in 2.7 or whatever.  I think that was the cause of the distrust.  At least it is in my case. And I'm not even talking about Splat books.  I remember at one point I had FFG's Guide to the Galaxy, then all of a sudden it (and many other sources) was gone. Soon,  PCGen had evolved to the point where my old files no longer worked with it.

I'd like three things to happen:
1) Just start releasing data again. Let those lst files flow.  I don't care if they are 10% buggy, that means that they are 90% is usable.
2) somehow create a way to manually over ride every field.  This helps in case of buggy files or if I add a feat that I don't know how to properly code.  If I create a feat that for example increases the attack bonus of my offhand weapon, - I ahve no idea how to code that to make it work.  I'd like a way to just overide it, so that it gets printed out correctly on my sheet.  I know that it might not be easy to implement, but it will help people deal with buggy list files.
3)  Get the list editors working.  That should be the number one priority.  Nothing should be coded by hand that can't be duplicated by the list editors.
Don't release new functionality until the list editors can handle it, because that's the first thing that people like me try to use. 

I used to use PCGen exclusively.  I used to really love it.  It used to actually *save* me time.  I'd like it to become that way again.  Those are my thoughts and opinions.   I hope they were semi-coherant.


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 20, 2003)

Zub said:
			
		

> I think for too long we kept reading that CMP was becoming the sole source for data files from this or that publisher



Other than WotC's closed content books and AU by Malhavoc, what other sources are you referring to?  Granted, WotC's books are a large selection, so that may be all you're referring to.


----------



## Zub (Nov 21, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Other than WotC's closed content books and AU by Malhavoc, what other sources are you referring to?  Granted, WotC's books are a large selection, so that may be all you're referring to.




It's the perception I had.  I thought CMP announced deals with Bastion as well.


----------



## BarakO (Nov 21, 2003)

Zub said:
			
		

> It's the perception I had.  I thought CMP announced deals with Bastion as well.




They did.  

And those sets will also be done for distribution with regular PCGen when a volunteer gets to them/has enough interest to create them as PCGen has permission to include them.  

This appears to me to be the biggest problem CMP is having... people see that Bastion (or any other publisher) will have sets through CMP and *assume* that they won't be in the free distribution.  That's just not so in all cases (I fervently hope it will turn out to be true in very few cases).

Many of the companies realize what a great marketing vehicle PCGen is and want their material in it for that reason alone.  

AEG's Spycraft is a prime example.  Due to licensing restrictions, it can't go out with the PCGen distribution, but as soon as it's completed it will be up and available for free at either the AEG or CMP website (last I heard AEG wanted CMP to host it, we'll see what happens), per their wish.

They stand to make more money (IMO) off of the demand for their physial books from people who see their stuff in PCGen for free and want the books than they'd make from charging for their data sets.


----------



## LetohNereg (Nov 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> great, you get a document that says the same thing that has been said over and over - that pcgen has no special relationship with CMP.  The document is unenforcable as pcgen is not a legal entity, and that is the status quo already.




I think that it would be handy for the PCGen community to have a list of all Third Parties that we has a working relationship with.

From my point of veiw it would state:

Company Name:
Relationship Type:
Permissions given to PCGen Community:
Permissions given from the PCGen community:
Progress:

It could not be a legal agreement between the parties as the PCGen community is not an entity, just a statement of what the current agreements are.

e.g.
Company Name: CMP
Relationship Type: Produce PCGen Datasets
Permissions given to PCGen Community:
- None.
Permissions given from the PCGen community:
- As per all other PCGen Users. 
- They may log trackers using same procedure as any other user. 
- No special treatment is given to the trackers raised.
Progress: 
- 3.0 WOTC Closed data sets available for fee on their web site.

Company Name: AEG
Relationship Type: Publish OGL Materials
Permissions given to PCGen Community:
- May produce data sets for OGL material
- May produce data sets for special license materials but not host them. WoTC set available host locations. 
Permissions given from the PCGen community:
- May advertise that PCGen data sets are availilble for their product.
Progress:
- Spycraft files being constructed.
- WoTC has set that data sets must be hosted at AEG web site or CMP web site. No other location is acceptable to WoTC due to the special licence.
- AEG is very resistant to having the files on their site as they cannot support them.
- Only current option is to host at CMP.

etc.

It would then be easy for PCGen users to see what permissions and arrangements were present, what data sets we have permission for but have not started (i.e. they can start them themselves!), and where the files are located.

This information would be updated regularly (at least once per release).


----------



## antpasq (Nov 21, 2003)

Wow!!!
I just wanted to know what was going on. This subject is starting to look like the PCGen boards. I won't claim to be any smarter than the next person, but I am already lost after reading all the posts today. For the lay person, like myself, there is no difference between PCGen and CMP. Now some of you are going to say there is and that it's my problem for not seeing the difference. But way back when PCGen was on version 2, before WoTC threatened the existence of PCGen, there was no viable difference between PCGen and CMP. Most of use thought CMP put out PCGen. It then seemed to use that CMP entered into a coercive relationship with WoTC, whereby WoTC said that CMP could continue to make PCGen as long as CMP fixed E-Tools and started charging people for the datasets for PCGen. A lot of use felt betrayed that CMP entered into this relationship. It made no sense for CMP to fix a competitive program, especially one that sucked in comparision to PCGen. I won't even get into the debate about charging us for datasets. I have already paid for the books, why should I have to pay to use them again? Most of the players in my group own most of the books and are not allowed to use info from books that they do not own. So none of us would be using PCGen to access information that we already did not own. Now, would I have paid for a program that allowed me to use the d20 books in a different way? Yes. But we were never asked to pay for PCGen. But we are now being asked to pay for books that we already own. The debate now seems to be about greed and there does seem to be a conflict of interest. PCGen seeks to get publishers to make their material free for inclusion with PCGen whilst CMP seeks publishers who want to charge for their data. It is impossible for these two entities to operate under the same roof, with the same people, for the same end-user program. Once people start to see the profit to be made from their endeavors, it is almost impossible for them to then offer their services for free. And free is what PCgen was about from the beginning. I just downloaded the latest PCGen beta, v5.51. There is nothing to use without paying for the datasets. It seems that you cannot even create a character without buying the WoTC dataset. So, while PCGen is free, you can't use it until you buy a dataset. So much for free.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 21, 2003)

One thing that might help is publishing the minutes. The last that I heard the decision was to do nothing of the sort, but to produce an edited version of said minutes.

Let us be honest - most people won't bother to read those minutes. (This would most often include me, unless an explosion of some sort occurs on the boards.)
Some who do read them will come to wrong conclusions.
And a few who read them just won't care -  they will be looking to see what might be coming down the pipe. (This might also include me.)

But not making the minutes available helps spread distrust. The phrase 'It was decided' for example can hide both 'by whom' and 'why'. Most importantly it will show folks that a BoD meeting is a boring, necessary thing that they can be glad that they don't have to attend.

I personally don't distrust the BoD. I don't even think that there is that big a conflict of interest. (But yes, I do think there is a little, or at least it's perception.) But I do think that they may need to step back, take a deep breath, and admit that there are a lot of people who, rightly or wrongly, think that there is a conflict of interest.

Mynex in particular can be very argumentative when he believes he is under attack. He is also the motive force behing there being a PCGen, and in a lot of ways he may feel that it's 'his baby.' And in this _he's right_. Asking him to step out of the BoD is way to extreme, it _is_ his baby.

A lot of people are getting very hot over this subject, and some are getting very personal in their attacks (You know who you are) , this needs to be debated, not argued - yelling, flaming, and trolling just make people get even less likely to discuss things rationally. 

You might want to get some arbitration by an uninvolved party - both sides are getting too steamed to see clearly, but it _does_ need to be dealt with before the entire project goes *flooey!*

The Auld Grump


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 21, 2003)

antpasq said:
			
		

> I just downloaded the latest PCGen beta, v5.51. There is nothing to use without paying for the datasets. It seems that you cannot even create a character without buying the WoTC dataset. So, while PCGen is free, you can't use it until you buy a dataset. So much for free.



You don't need to buy datasets to utilize PCGen.  Part 2 of the d/l includes (and I just did a fresh d/l myself):

Alderac Entertainment Group - Dragons
Alderac Entertainment Group - Dungeons
Alderac Entertainment Group - Evi
Alderac Entertainment Group - Undead
Alderac Entertainment Group - War
Atlas - Backdrops
Atlas - Beyond the Veil
Atlas - Thieves in the Forest
Atlas - Touched by the Gods
Auran d20 - Dark Awakenings - Guardian
Auran d20 - Notes from the Apothecary
Avalanche Press - Black Flags
Avalanche Press - Jade and Steel
Bastion Press - Alchemy and Herbalists
Battlefield Press - Cityscape
Citizen Games - Sidewinder
Creative Mountain Games - Culture Class - County Clergy
Creative Mountain Games - Culture Class - Trundle Folk
Creative Mountain Games - Group Combat
Creative Mountain Games - Open Spells Collection
FanCC - Netbook of Spells and Magic
Fantasy Flight Games - Spells and Spellcraft
Fantasy Flight Games - Starfarer's Handbook
Fantasy Flight Games - Traps and Treachery
Fantasy Flight Games - Mythic Races
Green Ronin - Arcana - Societies of Magic
Green Ronin - Arcana - Societies of Magic Web Enhancement
Green Ronin - Jade Dragons and Hungry Ghosts
Malhavoc Press - Book of Eldritch Might
Malhavoc Press - Book of Eldritch Might II
Malhavoc Press - Demon Gods Fane
Malhavoc Press - If Thoughts Could Kill
Malhavoc Press - Web Enhancements
Mongoose - Encyclopaedia Arcane - Chaos Magic
Mongoose - Encyclopaedia Arcane - Demonology
Mongoose - Encyclopaedia Arcane - Necromancy
Mongoose - Gladiators - Sands of Death
Mongoose - Power Classes - Assassin
Mongoose - Slayers Guide - Amazons
Mongoose - Slayers Guide - Centaurs
Mongoose - Slayers Guide - Gnolls
Mongoose - Slayers Guide - Hobgoblins
Mongoose - Slayers Guide - Troglodytes
Mongoose - Quint Fighter
Mongoose - Quint Rogue
Mongoose - Traveller's Tales - Seas of Blood
Pinnacle Entertainment - Deadlands - Deadlands d20
Pinnacle Entertainment - Deadlands - Deadlands d20 web enhancements
Pinnacle Entertainment - Deadlands - Horrors of the Weird West
Pinnacle Entertainment - Deadlands - The Way of the Gun
Pinnacle Entertainment - Deadlands - The Way of the Huckster
RPG Objects - Darwins World - Artifacts of the Ancients
RPG Objects - Darwins World - Denizens of the Twisted Earth
RPG Objects - Darwins World - World Rules
Sword and Sorcery Studios - Relics and Rituals

And we have these as well:
MSRD
SRD


Now, having said that, why do you say that you have to pay for datasets?


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 21, 2003)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> One thing that might help is publishing the minutes. The last that I heard the decision was to do nothing of the sort, but to produce an edited version of said minutes.



We make the log of the BoD meeting public now.  They can be found here.  As you can see, we have 10/19, 10/26, 11/2, 11/9 and 11/16 up.


			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I personally don't distrust the BoD. I don't even think that there is that big a conflict of interest. (But yes, I do think there is a little, or at least it's perception.) But I do think that they may need to step back, take a deep breath, and admit that there are a lot of people who, rightly or wrongly, think that there is a conflict of interest.



Glad to hear you don't distrust the BoD.  As for the perceived conflict of interest, yes, I agree, people do have that perception.  This is why I'm trying to find out the *specifics* of the perception (not just, "there's a conflict", but why one is perceived) so that they can be dealt with.


			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> You might want to get some arbitration by an uninvolved party - both sides are getting too steamed to see clearly, but it _does_ need to be dealt with before the entire project goes *flooey!



Arbitration?  That's not been mentioned before.  *goes off to think*


----------



## Nylanfs (Nov 21, 2003)

antpasq said:
			
		

> Wow!!!
> I have already paid for the books, why should I have to pay to use them again?




So if you own the book "Interview with a Vampire" by Ann Rice, you are entitled to seeing the movie for free since you own the book right? Or you should get a free copy of the book on tape so you can listen to it in your car?

You are paying for the item in ONE type of format, that doesn't apply to other types of format, audio, movie etc...

And basically what you are paying for when you buy CMP's datasets is time. You can code up all the books yourself. The documentation is sufficient and you can ask questions on the LSTHelp group when you get stuck, but it will take a long time learning by trial and error. CMP is offering these files to save you the hassle of doing that. And before you say "Well that's too expensive!" I bought all the splatbooks in the bundle for under $15US. To me saving me DAYS of free time is worth 15 dollars.


----------



## smetzger (Nov 21, 2003)

soulcatcher said:
			
		

> CMP has no special rights.  None.  If you don't like that answer, sorry, cause it's the only one there is.  What, do you want the BoD to vote to give CMP extra rights so that you can have some to point to?




Actually CMP does have a special right.

CMP has the right to claim compatability with PCGen.

I am not saying that others don't have permission to claim compatability with PCGen.  But because the guy who owns the PCGen name is on the board for CMP, CMP will always have the irrevocable right to claim compatability with PCGen.  I am sure there are lots of other for pay software companies that would like an irrevocable right to claim compatability with PCGen.


----------



## antpasq (Nov 21, 2003)

> Originally Posted by kingpaul
> You don't need to buy datasets to utilize PCGen. Part 2 of the d/l includes (and I just did a fresh d/l myself):




You are correct, I seem to be having a source error. I have all the sources loaded but PCGen is telling that in order to load a new character I need to have the sources loaded.




> Originally posted by Nylanfs
> So if you own the book "Interview with a Vampire" by Ann Rice, you are entitled to seeing the movie for free since you own the book right? Or you should get a free copy of the book on tape so you can listen to it in your car?




That arguement doen't hold water. Going to the movies was never free and then started charging people to go. Though I do understand the basis of your point. The unique situation here is that PCGen started for free. A group of good souls volunteered their time to create an awesome program for their friends and fellow gaming community. Would it be ok now for me to create lst files and share them with my friends? I think the answer would be yes. So at what point is someone violating WoTC intellectual rights? After sharing free files with 10 people, a 1000 people, a million people? As long as no one is making money on the program use of these books, no one is losing money. PCGen and other code monkeys were and still are volunteering their time and sharing with a broader community. No one was getting hurt when this was all free. The people getting hurt now are those that spend their money on the books and have no programming experience and have no disposable income left to purchase datasets.


----------



## soulcatcher (Nov 21, 2003)

antpasq said:
			
		

> That arguement doen't hold water. Going to the movies was never free and then started charging people to go. Though I do understand the basis of your point. The unique situation here is that PCGen started for free. A group of good souls volunteered their time to create an awesome program for their friends and fellow gaming community. Would it be ok now for me to create lst files and share them with my friends? I think the answer would be yes. So at what point is someone violating WoTC intellectual rights? After sharing free files with 10 people, a 1000 people, a million people? As long as no one is making money on the program use of these books, no one is losing money. PCGen and other code monkeys were and still are volunteering their time and sharing with a broader community. No one was getting hurt when this was all free. The people getting hurt now are those that spend their money on the books and have no programming experience and have no disposable income left to purchase datasets.




It's not our choice.  It's not CMP's choice. WotC made that call, and we have no legal choice but to follow it.  It's possible we would actually win in court, as creating data sets from their books is very likely not a copyright violation - but none of us have the money to fight tht battle - a battle that as far as I know was inevitable so long as pcgen shipped WotC's non OGL content.

By in large, most of us agree with you - but we have no choice.  And so Rob and Bryan started CMP - and did so because that was the only way pcgen would ever again see Tome and Blood et al.


----------



## Nine Hands (Nov 21, 2003)

antpasq said:
			
		

> You are correct, I seem to be having a source error. I have all the sources loaded but PCGen is telling that in order to load a new character I need to have the sources loaded.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just remember that PCGen is a OGL complaint piece of software.  Therefore it MUST comply by the OGL.  The OGL specifically states that you can not include PI without permission.  Since most of the WotC books are not even OGL, they can not legally be included.  This is where CMP comes in.  They have the legal permission to make WotC data sets.  

On top of this Bryan has stated many times that is a company does not want PCGen to include a specific product (OGL or not) that PCGen will not.  This was stated back at the beginning of the project and IMO still holds true to this day.  WotC asked PCGen to remove thier products and the PCGen team snapped into action.  Both as a show of good faith and to be legally compliant.  Somewhere in those discussions CMP was born (I am not certain of this, but I have been involved in enough PCGen discussions with Bryan, Mynex and Lone Jedi to understand what has gone on).  

I find it amusing that people complained that the datasets are not available freely.  Whoever is creating them is putting thier own personal time and effort into the creation of these sets.  They are NOT easy and it is time consuming.  I don't have the money yet to purchase any CMP data sets, but I plan on buying when I get some capital.  Considering that you could get 6 or 7 data sets for the price of a book, just cut back on your RPG purchases for a little while.  

Lastly, the permission to use WotC material (and these data sets are pretty verbose from what I have heard) is NOT FREE.  It had to have cost a bundle to get WotC's permission.  This puts CMP in the same boat as Kenzer Co and Soverign Press.  They have to sell a product just to recoup the cost of licensing, web hosting, etc.  Heck, maybe they can even make a profit while their at it.


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 21, 2003)

antpasq said:
			
		

> But way back when PCGen was on version 2, before WoTC threatened the existence of PCGen, there was no viable difference between PCGen and CMP. Most of use thought CMP put out PCGen. It then seemed to use that CMP entered into a coercive relationship with WoTC, whereby WoTC said that CMP could continue to make PCGen as long as CMP fixed E-Tools and started charging people for the datasets for PCGen. A lot of use felt betrayed that CMP entered into this relationship.



Alright, here is a quote from Bryan "Merton Monk" McRoberts, Benevolent Dictator of PCGen and co-founder of CMP


> We had our chat with Wotc at GenCon after version 2.7.3, which is the last release to have the splatbooks in them. We had just released version 3.0 for GenCon, but the splatbook data wasn't in it because we hadn't been able to get an official permission from Wotc. We became OGL/D20 compliant with the release of 4.0 on 9/11/2002. CMP didn't actually begin operation until February or March of 2003, though we existed on paper in December of 2002. CMP has never stopped any data from becoming available in PCGen or caused any data to be removed from PCGen.


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 21, 2003)

antpasq said:
			
		

> You are correct, I seem to be having a source error. I have all the sources loaded but PCGen is telling that in order to load a new character I need to have the sources loaded.



In that case, I suggest you go to PCGen's main Y! group and submit a post asking about your problem.  Ther are many folks there who can help you out.


----------



## kingpaul (Nov 21, 2003)

Nine Hands said:
			
		

> Just remember that PCGen is a OGL complaint piece of software.



Not quite.  The code is LGPL, the data is OGL.  An important distinction to be made.


----------



## Nylanfs (Nov 21, 2003)

> Originally Posted by antpasq
> That arguement doen't hold water. Going to the movies was never free and then started charging people to go. Though I do understand the basis of your point. The unique situation here is that PCGen started for free. A group of good souls volunteered their time to create an awesome program for their friends and fellow gaming community. Would it be ok now for me to create lst files and share them with my friends? I think the answer would be yes. So at what point is someone violating WoTC intellectual rights? After sharing free files with 10 people, a 1000 people, a million people? As long as no one is making money on the program use of these books, no one is losing money. PCGen and other code monkeys were and still are volunteering their time and sharing with a broader community. No one was getting hurt when this was all free. The people getting hurt now are those that spend their money on the books and have no programming experience and have no disposable income left to purchase datasets.




Actually PCGen never recieved permission to publish the datasets for all the WotC non-OGL stuff (splatbooks, OA, FR stuff). The datasets were done and then released under the (admittantly mistaken) impression that WotC wouldn't have a problem. Bryan and Mynex were always trying to get ahold of Anthony Valterra to make sure it was okay, but they could never get ahold of each other 

Then came GenCon '02 when they finally were able to get a chance to sit down and talk with him about it and WotC said that they didn't want that stuff being released for free. (And what ever you may have heard WotC never did send Bryan a official C&D order). They said that PCGen had to be OGL compliant and that then negotiations could take place about the non-OGL books. It took (I think) 40 days for PCGen to become OGL compliant, and the PCGen BoD decided to go ahead and make it's self d20 compliant also just to prove we could.   If I'm wrong about how long it took I'm sure somebody else will correct me.

After that was done Bryan and Mynex and Lone Jedi sat down with WotC and started negotiations with them about the non-OGL booksets. And CMP was formed because as a brink&morter company WotC felt more comfortable dealing with another legal entity as opposed to the loose group of volenteers that PCGen is. Remember PCGen isn't a "legal" entity, it's just an open source group. And those negotiations cost money and the permissions cost money so the datasets HAVE to cost something. And the fact that the datasets were re-built from the ground up you had to pay the people that re-did those.

Note: I was not involved with above said meetings. But I was at GenCon '02 and got most of my information fairly close to the sources so it's a real close approximation of what happened.


----------



## Nine Hands (Nov 21, 2003)

Nylanfs said:
			
		

> Actually PCGen never recieved permission to publish the datasets for all the WotC non-OGL stuff (splatbooks, OA, FR stuff). The datasets were done and then released under the (admittantly mistaken) impression that WotC wouldn't have a problem. Bryan and Mynex were always trying to get ahold of Anthony Valterra to make sure it was okay, but they could never get ahold of each other
> 
> Then came GenCon '02 when they finally were able to get a chance to sit down and talk with him about it and WotC said that they didn't want that stuff being released for free. (And what ever you may have heard WotC never did send Bryan a official C&D order). They said that PCGen had to be OGL compliant and that then negotiations could take place about the non-OGL books. It took (I think) 40 days for PCGen to become OGL compliant, and the PCGen BoD decided to go ahead and make it's self d20 compliant also just to prove we could.   If I'm wrong about how long it took I'm sure somebody else will correct me.
> 
> ...




I agree with Paul.  I was with Bryan, Mynex and others prior to their meeting with Anthony Valterra at GenCon 02.  After the meeting, we were chatting outside the convention center about the proposed changes.  I think the gaming community should appreciate the amount of effort that Bryan, Mynex, Lone Jedi and others have put into this project.  A project that initially was done for free.  If someone can make a little capital off of this, then great.  More power to them.


----------



## herald (Nov 21, 2003)

As a person who has met and discussed these programs with Bryan, Mynex, Lone Jedi (via message boards and very briefly at Gencon) I can tell that they are very proud of PCGEN. It was presented at Gencon Indy and shown just how powerful it can be.

I don't quite understand how it can be percieved that one can "steal code" from PCGEN and then take that information and put it in eTools. eTools has a hard wired front end over a Access 2000 Data Base. Nothing in that code even comes close to being OGL. PCGEN is Java, and is dependant on lst files. I just don't think that you can mix and match programing styles that easily, especially since CMP has to try and untangle alot of programing spagetti in eTools. 

Another thing that seems like a kick in the teeth is the fact that everyone seems upset that CMP contacted WOTC to do a for profit job on creating (correcting) a program like eTools. There is nothing wrong with people asking for adaquite compinsation for the work that they do. IMHO Just because you decide to volunteer, doesn't mean that everone else should too.


----------



## Mynex (Nov 22, 2003)

herald said:
			
		

> Another thing that seems like a kick in the teeth is the fact that everyone seems upset that CMP contacted WOTC to do a for profit job on creating (correcting) a program like eTools.




Actually, funny enough, we didn't go to WotC to ask to fix e-Tools.  They asked us.  Specifically Anythony Valterra (when he was still there).

Bryan and I had gone to WotC headquarters to 'pitch' PCGen to try and get the non-OGL stuff back into PCGen... Before we had that meeting, we had a pleasant dinner/evening with several publishers (Can't rem the place, but they had a kicking ceeg-arr room.   )...  During the Dinner Anthony asked me if I thought we could fix e-Tools.  Without a heartbeat passing I said yes.  Silly me   

After he wandered away, then I had to pick up my jaw from the ground... Gadzooks, if I'd know then what I know now about that code base... *shudder*

I'd probably still have said yes, but I would've had a lot less surprises in store for me and for the coders that try to untangle that spaghetti!   

But regardless of who came to who, we still wound up with fixing it (to the best of the capability it can handle at any rate)... And yes, CMP is a licensee of WotC, has to be, not just for the data set permissions, but to even work on e-Tools.

There's been a lot of flack directed at CMP, a lot of people not understanding the differences, but we've tried to make it clear to people... all people need to do is ask a question.  We're perfectly willing to answer anything that doesn't touch on internal company affairs (contracts, accounting, the usual company private stuff).


----------



## antpasq (Nov 22, 2003)

Everyone: thank you. 
I feel more informed now about the state of affairs with PCGen/CMP.
I also appreciate the patience and first-hand knowledge of those involved in the 
evolution of PCGen. I just hope at the end-of-the-day our community has a dynamic program that allows us to continue to enjoy the games that we love.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 22, 2003)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> We make the log of the BoD meeting public now.  They can be found here.  As you can see, we have 10/19, 10/26, 11/2, 11/9 and 11/16 up.



 Okay, I see my information for that was, umm, a bit dated shall we say?  My bad.


> Arbitration?  That's not been mentioned before.  *goes off to think*



 Arbitration is often a good idea when folks get all riled up. An outside party can often tell both sides to sit down and shut up and/or rephrase things in a more diplomatic fashion. If I recall properly Chaosium (or at least one of its people) once arbitrated between GDW and R. Talsorian over some cyberpunk IP. Cheaper and less likely to leave lasting trauma (ie shark, I mean lawyer, bites) than a lawsuit. Especially if both parties really want to work things out. (Which I think is the case here.)

Personally I am also worried about how WotC is going to handle PCGen dropping the D20 in order to have die rolling available. Everything may be fine, but I just have a feeling of unease... On the other hand not allowing the program to roll stats was just plain _silly!_

The Auld Grump - by the way the combined PCGen and GMGen was _huge!_


----------



## herald (Nov 22, 2003)

Mynex said:
			
		

> Actually, funny enough, we didn't go to WotC to ask to fix e-Tools.  They asked us.  Specifically Anythony Valterra (when he was still there).
> 
> Bryan and I had gone to WotC headquarters to 'pitch' PCGen to try and get the non-OGL stuff back into PCGen... Before we had that meeting, we had a pleasant dinner/evening with several publishers (Can't rem the place, but they had a kicking ceeg-arr room.   )...  During the Dinner Anthony asked me if I thought we could fix e-Tools.  Without a heartbeat passing I said yes.  Silly me
> 
> ...





I stand corrected, but the intent of my post remains the same.

There is no shame in collecting compensation for the work you do.

Keep up the good work guys.


----------



## Mynex (Nov 22, 2003)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Personally I am also worried about how WotC is going to handle PCGen dropping the D20 in order to have die rolling available. Everything may be fine, but I just have a feeling of unease... _silly!_




I can't speak on WotC's behalf, but the general feeling I get is that it's a non-issue with them.  *shrug* My perception on matters, but I think if it was a concern they would have said something, even in passing by now.

Regardless of what people think of em, WotC has actually been pretty cool about things.. maybe not laid back    But at least not spastic.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Nov 23, 2003)

Mynex said:
			
		

> I can't speak on WotC's behalf, but the general feeling I get is that it's a non-issue with them.  *shrug* My perception on matters, but I think if it was a concern they would have said something, even in passing by now.
> 
> Regardless of what people think of em, WotC has actually been pretty cool about things.. maybe not laid back    But at least not spastic.




Heh! That's cool. I may just being paranoid... It wouldn't be the first time. 'Course they waited til Gen Con last time.... (Though now you probably have a bit more of an on going relationship with them... they might be a little more likely to contact you now to let you know ahead of time.)

The Auld Grump, the nice thing about paranoia is that you can _share!_


----------

