PDA

View Full Version : Open Foundation Ruleset project



Goblin-King
September 15th, 2008, 14:19
In response to this thread (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8975), I've decided to make a post about our plans for a "generic" ruleset.

We originally created the d20 ruleset with the intention of both serving the users who use that ruleset in their games, as well as providing an example ruleset on top of which others can build new rulesets, rather than having to start from scratch. The d20 ruleset has since become a conduit for providing new functionality that many want to incorporate into their own rulesets, but to do this they sometimes have to go through the d20 mechanics to find the new functionality. On the other hand, the community has created many good improvements that would benefit most users, including those who use the d20 ruleset to play.

What we'd like to do is open the development process for the d20 ruleset, and/or its successor. This ruleset would be supported and distributed by SmiteWorks, but we'd follow a process common to other open source projects in accepting submissions from others.

I want to mention that I think the word "generic" is not quite descriptive of what this might be. A generic ruleset is one that you could play any game on, whereas a more realistic view of what this project might produce would be a "foundation" ruleset, something that only contains basic tools, and on top of which a specific or generic ruleset could be built, as a derived product or an extension. A generic ruleset might be a spin-off project, one we'd probably be happy to host as well.

We can provide the following:
A Subversion repository for the files
A set of XSL files for creating documentation in XML form similar to the reference documentation for the FG engine scripting interface
A location on the web site where the latest documentation in the repository can be viewed directly
A forum dedicated to the project
If necessary, an issue/bug trackerOur plans about the exact practicalities aren't quite done yet. The working version in the repository would be available to everyone interested in getting it for development work, either as a basis for their own ruleset or for furthering the project itself. For end users, periodic testing and release cycles would be needed, with the possibility of releasing stuff through our updater.

The goals
Create a ruleset containing the most basic functionality shared in some form by practically all rulesets, such as the chat window, story pages and images
Create a basis for new rulesets to build on
Use a license that enables both commercial and non-commercial use, to support parties who work with RPG publishers to bring their games to Fantasy Grounds (OGL would seem to fit the bill initially)
Build a framework that defines a common interface point for extensions
Define a convention for some generic graphical resources that could be used to build rules agnostic extensions without having to define and include new graphics assets
Create a central location for the development and distribution of innovative new componentsAt the moment, I'm just talking about plans, of course. I don't have a specific process to present or suggest. Any discussion on that topic is welcome.

Ram Tyr
September 15th, 2008, 16:50
In response to this thread (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8975), I've decided to make a post about our plans for a "generic" ruleset.
<SNIP>
The goals
Create a ruleset containing the most basic functionality shared in some form by practically all rulesets, such as the chat window, story pages and images
Create a basis for new rulesets to build on
Use a license that enables both commercial and non-commercial use, to support parties who work with RPG publishers to bring their games to Fantasy Grounds (OGL would seem to fit the bill initially)
Build a framework that defines a common interface point for extensions
Define a convention for some generic graphical resources that could be used to build rules agnostic extensions without having to define and include new graphics assets
Create a central location for the development and distribution of innovative new componentsAt the moment, I'm just talking about plans, of course. I don't have a specific process to present or suggest. Any discussion on that topic is welcome.
I posted in the community project thread the following:

It seems that the community project suggested here could build on the smiteworks project suggested at the other thread. Goblin King, you should make clear whether you are suggesting replacing that project with this project.

Obviously, the smiteworks project seems to me like the responsible thing for smiteworks to do as a business model.

Planning for sibling projects (rather than replacing the community project) would allow those that will not volunteer if their work can be used for a commercial purpose to focus their efforts on the community project. The community project would be able to use the work of the smiteworks project if the licensing decisions are made correctly. Obviously, the opposite would not be true to prevent the use of community project mods in commercial projects.

It may be that most people will simply spend their efforts on whichever project is bigger, but I do not see a need to limit the other project.

Later.

Bidmaron
September 16th, 2008, 02:36
It seems we should focus on the official effort, but we need a good leader like Joshuha to lead the effort. He hasn't weighed in yet. I like the idea of an officially sanctioned effort.

joshuha
September 16th, 2008, 03:18
I am fine with something sanctioned by Smiteworks as long as the license is open enough to use for both non-commercial and commercial needs. With an official backing you do buy the ability for updates to core ruleset files to be committed as part of the official SVN. I would be happy to lead but if there are others who would want to take that role they are more than welcome to.

Foen
September 16th, 2008, 06:17
I think this is a very commendable effort and would be delighted to contribute. I don't have the capacity to lead on this, and will happily follow.

Stuart

Goblin-King
September 16th, 2008, 07:08
It seems that the community project suggested here could build on the smiteworks project suggested at the other thread. Goblin King, you should make clear whether you are suggesting replacing that project with this project.

[...]

Planning for sibling projects (rather than replacing the community project) would allow those that will not volunteer if their work can be used for a commercial purpose to focus their efforts on the community project. The community project would be able to use the work of the smiteworks project if the licensing decisions are made correctly. Obviously, the opposite would not be true to prevent the use of community project mods in commercial projects.
Officially, there's no reason for a community project not to run alongside this one. In practice, I think the overlap is so great that it doesn't make the greatest sense to do that. Your assessment of sibling projects is quite accurate, I think. It would make more sense to do it that way.

Foen
September 16th, 2008, 07:20
As an observation on commercial/non-commercial use (and at the risk of inviting flaming, which you should please direct to me via PM), the OGL is wonderfully symmetric: if someone develops code under the OGL as a non-commercial contributor, it can be re-used commercially; but code contributed (and sold) commercially can be reused both commercially and non-commercially.

It is on this basis that the d20 ruleset has been used as a foundation for other commercial and non-commercial rulesets. Provided appropriate acknowledgement is given, you don't even need the permission of the originator. Hence the work I've been doing on Call of Cthulhu can be reused elsewhere if you acknowledge DA for it, and WotC can't stop other folks (commercial or otherwise) from reusing their contributions. It seems to be an excellent basis for building an open community with plenty of space for fan-built and commercial content, and it is a real shame that WotC stopped using the OGL for 4e.

Just my 2c, and apologies for being a bit off-topic.

Stuart

Ram Tyr
September 16th, 2008, 13:39
As an observation on commercial/non-commercial use (and at the risk of inviting flaming, which you should please direct to me via PM), the OGL is wonderfully symmetric: if someone develops code under the OGL as a non-commercial contributor, it can be re-used commercially; but code contributed (and sold) commercially can be reused both commercially and non-commercially.

It is on this basis that the d20 ruleset has been used as a foundation for other commercial and non-commercial rulesets. Provided appropriate acknowledgement is given, you don't even need the permission of the originator. Hence the work I've been doing on Call of Cthulhu can be reused elsewhere if you acknowledge DA for it, and WotC can't stop other folks (commercial or otherwise) from reusing their contributions. It seems to be an excellent basis for building an open community with plenty of space for fan-built and commercial content, and it is a real shame that WotC stopped using the OGL for 4e.

Just my 2c, and apologies for being a bit off-topic.

Stuart
For some people, having their contributions used by an entity in a commercial project is fine. For some people, not so fine. I just wanted to point out that solely doing the smiteworks project and letting the community project lapse is a mistake if the goal is to get the greatest number of contributors. In this, symmetry is not ideal. If contributors have an option of which project to contribute the number of contributors is maximized.

Also, consider some of the criticism of the OGL:
Criticism from consumers that some companies commercially sell what others have made available for free; and
Criticism from companies and consumers that other companies repackage their ideas without asking permission first. (Even though producing an OGL product is expressly granting such permission.

While I have supported the OGL, it is not without its detractors. It is important to look at the broad number of licenses available. The OGL is a target for comparison because it is familiar in the rpg community.

Ideally, smiteworks would have provided the offered support to the community project and allowed it to develop while ensuring that the license structure they would use in the smiteworks project would work hand in hand. Now that the cat is out of the bag, that opportunity is lost, but depending on the stance that smiteworks takes with respect to sibling projects they may still develop.

I acknowledged that one project may obtain more support than another. (Obviously, everyone interested in selling their products will go to the smiteworks project; which is a good number of potential contributers.) However, that is no reason to not fully support both projects with the same services; even if one becomes a wall flower that nobody asks to dance at the prom. (This is an economy of scale point.) Also, as long as the licensing decision is made wisely, the community project will have access to everything that the smiteworks project does. So, if the community project ends up having fewer contributors, they will still be able to rely on the support of the smiteworks project. So, the number of contributors to the community project will be less critical. (Sometimes size does not matter!)

Goblin-King, I am glad that you see the sense in sibling projects. I can see no downside to it for smiteworks. I also see the financial incentive for smiteworks to back a smiteworks project that allows for commercial uses. In this case, this is a not a zero sum game. Smiteworks can support both. In which case, as the youngsters say...

FG ftw!

To the extent that I am not able to program I can offer my support by offering to help review suggested licensing structures. For all I know you do not need my help, but I offer it just the same.

Later.

Goblin-King
September 16th, 2008, 14:53
Lots of points that were clearly well thought out.

While I agree with most of the observations, unless there's opinions to the contrary, I didn't see much that would actually make the OGL model bad for this particular project.


While I have supported the OGL, it is not without its detractors. It is important to look at the broad number of licenses available. The OGL is a target for comparison because it is familiar in the rpg community.
I certainly did not suggest the OGL simply because it's seen much use in the rpg industry. I just couldn't think of one commonly used in the software development industry that would fit the bill better. The greatest benefit of OGL is the ability to produce derivative works for a variety of "business cases". Licenses that I'd rule out include GPL, CC and MIT, exactly for this reason.


[...] Also, as long as the licensing decision is made wisely, the community project will have access to everything that the smiteworks project does. So, if the community project ends up having fewer contributors, they will still be able to rely on the support of the smiteworks project. So, the number of contributors to the community project will be less critical. (Sometimes size does not matter!)
Would this not be satisfied by an OGL license? I'm just making sure you're trying to make sure this is covered from all the angles and not making a case against it...


To the extent that I am not able to program I can offer my support by offering to help review suggested licensing structures. For all I know you do not need my help, but I offer it just the same.
You're forgetting testing. Lots of work right there to be done. ;)

Vroomfogle
September 16th, 2008, 19:40
The Lesser GPL (LGPL) does allow derivative works for commercial applications. The MIT license is also the same, it can be used in other proprietary codes.

Sigurd
September 17th, 2008, 02:30
I think there is an elegance in having a license that is respected for both code and data and the OGL would be my vote.

Licenses get complicated and having only one license for material in the project would seem a working necessity. LGPL or GPL might be my favourite licenses but in this case, where some of the data is likely to come from OGL sources, it would make sense (to me) to just use the one license.

In fairness to WOTC and the the OGL writers of the gaming world I think it would be good to be clear on one license at every point in material production.

Nothing hurts the momentum of a group project like finding someone, perhaps as an honest mystake, added stuff they had no right to. The project tasks get turned inside out as the material is removed and its just bad for the project reputation.

Sigurd

Ram Tyr
September 17th, 2008, 14:43
Tero, let me ask a couple of questions to clarify what we are actually talking about. The answers to some of the questions are obvious or already answered, but collecting them together makes progress easier. So, here are the questions:
What stuff would the smiteworks project and the community project create? Would the smiteworks project and the community project include programming innovations? (New extensions, modules, lua files, etc.)
What stuff would the smiteworks project and the community project create? Would the smiteworks project and the community project publish actual content? (So, a d20 module? A GURPS module?)
The stuff created by the smiteworks project would be available for both commercial and noncommercial uses, correct?
The stuff created by the community project would solely be available for noncommercial uses, correct?
The stuff created by the smiteworks project would be available for use to the community project, correct?
Now, let me point out that the only question that is really up for grabs is what licensing will be applied to the programming innovations. The licensing of the content will be decided by the publisher of the RPG system or setting. So, someone publishing an Iron Heroes extension/module/ruleset would comply with OGL. Someone publishing Savage Worlds would comply with their license, which I do not believe is OGL.

Keep in mind that the issue is allowing those that can contribute to programming innovations but will only do so if their work is limited to noncommercial to have an avenue to contribute. Applying the OGL to programming innovations is obviously inconsistent with the community project as it allows both commercial and noncommercial uses. Also, applying it to programming innovations in the smiteworks project precludes the community project from using it. It is inconsistent with the goal of the sibling projects. (I just want to point out that the wording is important. Applying the OGL to programming innovations is inconsistent. Having OGL content is fine. Besides, we are stuck with the license selected by the publisher of the RPG content.)

Hopefully, this helps clarify what it seems to me is the question and we can build from here.

Later.

Goblin-King
September 17th, 2008, 20:00
First, let me say that I don't think the terminology "SmiteWorks project" and "community project" quite reflect the intentions. I'm going to follow your terminology in this post, but I'd much rather call them the "SmiteWorks community project" (the entire point is giving the community a possibility to contribute) and "the non-commercial project" (as I get the impression that is the most important criterion).



What stuff would the smiteworks project and the community project create? Would the smiteworks project and the community project include programming innovations? (New extensions, modules, lua files, etc.)
The primary goal is to create a foundation ruleset. What that includes is not defined yet. Offhand, I'd say it probably should be a fully functional ruleset, that contains generic stuff like story pages, images, tokens, logic for logging in and selecting characters, the desktop and helpful script handling.

Anything other than the ruleset is not the scope at this time. If it works out well, the same process can be applied to extensions, modules, script libraries etc.

I'm of course only talking about the "SmiteWorks project".

It would include programming innovations, as that's pretty much all there is to it. In my view it's impossible to separate the XML definitions for rulesets from the Lua scripts, so I'm counting both of them as programming innovations.



What stuff would the smiteworks project and the community project create? Would the smiteworks project and the community project publish actual content? (So, a d20 module? A GURPS module?)
My answer to the earlier question applies here as well, I think. The foundation ruleset project wouldn't produce content (unless someone comes up with a compelling reason). The one exception I can think of would be a SmiteWorks supported d20 SRD sibling project that would use the same structure, and include d20 SRD reference modules.



The stuff created by the smiteworks project would be available for both commercial and noncommercial uses, correct?
That is my argument in this case. Supporting publishers is a win for the users who want to use what they create. We must keep in mind that a publisher using the project material wouldn't own it, only the specifics they create on top of that.



The stuff created by the community project would solely be available for noncommercial uses, correct?
I'm not the person to speak for the community project. It's up to those who are interested in getting one started to define it.



The stuff created by the smiteworks project would be available for use to the community project, correct?
As available as the license would allow. The OGL would pretty much guarantee that any spin-off project could use the stuff, but not own it (see below).


Keep in mind that the issue is allowing those that can contribute to programming innovations but will only do so if their work is limited to noncommercial to have an avenue to contribute.
I don't see this as that big of a problem. From SmiteWorks' point of view, we need to have a reference ruleset publishers as well as users can use, and we can't support two projects like this. (Keep in mind support does not mean simply providing the disk space, we intend to be a part of the development as well.)

I suppose this issue is a bit of a chicken and an egg situation. People have been willing to work on top of the d20 ruleset, everything done for that is subject to the OGL, including programming innovations. I don't see why that would have to change or why we wouldn't be able to get people interested. I'd be happy to hear actual opinions either way.

In practice, people take the d20 ruleset, strip out the d20 specifics, and add in their own stuff. What they'd do with the foundation project would be exactly the same, except they'd be saved the bother of stripping out the d20 stuff. A completely separate and additional benefit would be that they'd be able to contribute to the package forming the starting point.


Applying the OGL to programming innovations is obviously inconsistent with the community project as it allows both commercial and noncommercial uses.

Again, I'm not the person to speak for any possible community project. I do sense a sentiment of community vs. publishers in how you present this, which I don't consider being founded on any real argument. You're probably just covering the bases, but wording is important. :)


Also, applying it to programming innovations in the smiteworks project precludes the community project from using it. It is inconsistent with the goal of the sibling projects.

This would be an issue. I'm not seeing how that is, though. It precludes the community project from owning it, but it doesn't really limit their use of it in any way. Making modifications to the foundation ruleset material would pretty much make it their own contribution, which they could declare being outside the open portion. The point of the OGL is that the declaration is up to the people who use it, and there's an option for them to be safe.


The licensing of the content will be decided by the publisher of the RPG system or setting. So, someone publishing an Iron Heroes extension/module/ruleset would comply with OGL. Someone publishing Savage Worlds would comply with their license, which I do not believe is OGL.
I moved this quote out of context, as my point builds on what I said before. In such a case, the OGL would apply to material from the foundation ruleset that the ruleset developer would use in his custom ruleset. He could then build additional material on top of it, and declare it to use whatever license he likes. This could be entirely proprietary, or subject to the RPG publisher's license. All content such as rules reference and adventures might fall under a third license, and would quite likely be mandated by the RPG publisher's license.

This is good discussion, at the right time, so thank you for that :)

Bidmaron
September 18th, 2008, 01:38
Go with the OGL and let's get started! The OGL is good enough. I'm sure SmiteWorks has an attorney on retainer. Let him figure out the details. The 'Smiteworks' project should support both commercial and private adaptation and adoption. I frankly don't care what the 'community project' does, as I don't intend to participate on it. I have no plans to do commercial work myself at this point, but a lot of the best stuff (3.5 JPG and 4 JPG aside and maybe some others I don't personally know about) is commercial, so I want whatever I do to be able to be used by whoever would like as long as they can't claim it as their own.
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why some are so against those who want to supplement their day job with a little extra. I doubt anyone will get to the top tax bracket through any of this, so what's the beef?
An entire cottage industry has blossomed off the OGL, so it's obviously good enough. Let's stop the legal discussion and move on.

Bidmaron
September 19th, 2008, 12:10
I'd like to see the base rules support a generic help system that can then be extended by extension writers so that the help for each extension would automatically patch into the 'Help' library module. Some of you may have seen the work in progress I've been doing on FG2 help. Is there any reason the extension architecture couldn't support this?

Ram Tyr
September 19th, 2008, 14:58
First, let me say that I don't think the terminology "SmiteWorks project" and "community project" quite reflect the intentions. I'm going to follow your terminology in this post, but I'd much rather call them the "SmiteWorks community project" (the entire point is giving the community a possibility to contribute) and "the non-commercial project" (as I get the impression that is the most important criterion).
:)
Of course, you can call it whatever you wish. I used 'community' as that was used in the first thread that your announcement responded to. We could use the thread titles, 'community' project and 'open foundation' project.


That is my argument in this case. Supporting publishers is a win for the users who want to use what they create. We must keep in mind that a publisher using the project material wouldn't own it, only the specifics they create on top of that.
I want to point out that I have not suggested that smiteworks should not support publishers. I agree that supporting publishers is a win for those consumers that want to use what the publishers create. More on this below.


I don't see this as that big of a problem. From SmiteWorks' point of view, we need to have a reference ruleset publishers as well as users can use, and we can't support two projects like this. (Keep in mind support does not mean simply providing the disk space, we intend to be a part of the development as well.)

I suppose this issue is a bit of a chicken and an egg situation. People have been willing to work on top of the d20 ruleset, everything done for that is subject to the OGL, including programming innovations. I don't see why that would have to change or why we wouldn't be able to get people interested. I'd be happy to hear actual opinions either way.

In practice, people take the d20 ruleset, strip out the d20 specifics, and add in their own stuff. What they'd do with the foundation project would be exactly the same, except they'd be saved the bother of stripping out the d20 stuff. A completely separate and additional benefit would be that they'd be able to contribute to the package forming the starting point.

I am sorry to 'hear you now saying' (as much as anything is heard / said on a message board :)) you cannot support the sibling projects. Given your reticence, I agree with your suggestion to invite folks to speak up on the issue. (As opposed to try to shout differing views down.) Perhaps I have only imagined the community members that have said in various ways prior to this project that they would not volunteer their time if a commercial interest could use their work product. Certainly, across the internet this is a common theme. I will point out that in the community project thread there was already one community member that made this preference known.


Again, I'm not the person to speak for any possible community project. I do sense a sentiment of community vs. publishers in how you present this, which I don't consider being founded on any real argument. You're probably just covering the bases, but wording is important. :)

I do not feel that I have given you any reason to sense 'a sentiment of community vs. publishers'. There is tension inherent in having the sibling projects, but it is stated plainly and in full view. There is nothing more to sense beyond (concerning publishers) that from my position. If I am in error, please point out my mistatements so that I may retract them.

Let me say again that the sibling projects allow smiteworks to get the benefits that they wish. The sibling projects allow publishers to get the benefits that they wish. There is no doubt about it. The only difference is from the perspective of potential contributors. Some contributors will participate knowing that their work produce can be sold commercially. Others will not. The sibling projects allow people that are not interested in having their work subsequently used in a commercial project to contribute. Whole rulesets could exist in this project with no commercial involvement. This is especially true given the the programming innovations of the smiteworks open foundation project would be available for use. This would have no impact on the availability of a foundation ruleset to publishers. There is no downside to publishers so there should be no sense of antagonism to publishers. In order for that to happen one would have to argue for a solely noncommercial project. I have not gone there and have no interest in such a recommendation. I recognize smiteworks has their own commercial interests to consider.

As I said earlier, this is not a zero sum game. It is a win, win, with only marginal 'cost' to smiteworks.


This would be an issue. I'm not seeing how that is, though. It precludes the community project from owning it, but it doesn't really limit their use of it in any way. Making modifications to the foundation ruleset material would pretty much make it their own contribution, which they could declare being outside the open portion. The point of the OGL is that the declaration is up to the people who use it, and there's an option for them to be safe.


I moved this quote out of context, as my point builds on what I said before. In such a case, the OGL would apply to material from the foundation ruleset that the ruleset developer would use in his custom ruleset. He could then build additional material on top of it, and declare it to use whatever license he likes. This could be entirely proprietary, or subject to the RPG publisher's license. All content such as rules reference and adventures might fall under a third license, and would quite likely be mandated by the RPG publisher's license.

I think this may be an issue of the elegance of the solution, but I do not claim to have the 'one right way'. In any event, having agreed that more input is appropriate, we can wait on that over some period of time.


This is good discussion, at the right time, so thank you for that :)
I am happy to be able to have this discussion with you without any vitriol from you. Thank you for that. ;)

Thore_Ironrock
September 22nd, 2008, 12:24
So, someone publishing an Iron Heroes extension/module/ruleset would comply with OGL. Someone publishing Savage Worlds would comply with their license, which I do not believe is OGL.

Digital Adventures has *exclusive* contracts with its licensors to produce all content for Fantasy Grounds for those licenses. As a result any FG projects created for these settings would require the approval of Digital Adventures. Creating FG coding content in these cases does not fall under an OGL agreement, though the gaming material itself does.

I'm more than willing to speak with anyone regarding the creation of extensions for DA products, but please check with me first.

Sigurd
September 22nd, 2008, 12:53
Digital Adventures has *exclusive* contracts with its licensors to produce all content for Fantasy Grounds for those licenses. As a result any FG projects created for these settings would require the approval of Digital Adventures. Creating FG coding content in these cases does not fall under an OGL agreement, though the gaming material itself does.

I'm more than willing to speak with anyone regarding the creation of extensions for DA products, but please check with me first.

Are you saying that your contracts supersede the licensing of OGL material as it might exist in your licensors or that none of them have OGL material?

Sigurd

Thore_Ironrock
September 22nd, 2008, 14:35
Are you saying that your contracts supersede the licensing of OGL material as it might exist in your licensors or that none of them have OGL material? Sigurd

Digital Adventures' contract with publishers (to date) is for the exclusive rights to produce FG products and conversions, and does not fall under any current RPG OGL agreement that in those cases is for RPG printed or PDF material. Again, this does not cover the creation of the RPG material itself, just it's use in Fantasy Grounds. This does include the afore mentioned Iron Heroes and Savage Worlds.

The reason for this is because Digital Adventures pays for all initial FG coding and graphical development, development of upgrades, the distribution of the publisher's FG converted products, and in the case of Savage Worlds the creation of an official web community -- the publisher pays nothing for all of this. We also pay a licensing fee on every FG product sold under the agreement, and protect the publisher's interests in the FG market. This agreement protects our investment in this industry; such as if someone else would want to create a free SW or IH ruleset to undercut a product that we have invested considerable time and money to bring to the community. Of course, this does not apply to things such as the CSRD or MSRD, which we do not have official contracts to produce, and the OGL agreement in those cases does not prevent or exclude reproduction into an electronic form.

As I also said, I'm 100% for working with anyone that wants to create extensions for products produced by Digital Adventures, but per our license agreement we do have to come to an agreement on its use since it uses a product in which have paid to have developed and legally own. In fact, we've already brokered a few deals for people to produce free and pay-for adventure and accessory products for use with our ruleset product conversions, specifically Savage Worlds.

If you have any questions regarding this, or which to talk about ruleset extensions or adventures for our products, just drop me a line.

Sigurd
September 22nd, 2008, 15:46
So to be clear.

Your licensors have reduced their publication promises for material under the Open Game License to exclude Fantasy Grounds?

The Open Game License does not cover their material if one chooses to publish for Fantasy Grounds?



I know Pinnacle Entertainment Group has no OGL so Savage Worlds is out. Which publications, with OGL material, do these agreements cover?

I'm not trying to be difficult. I respect your publications - I think they're a great deal because you do so much work on them. Still, I am looking at material within the scope of the OGL and subsequent licenses seldom revoke earlier rights. Everyone in this thread should be clearly on the same page - if you are claiming to exclude some OGL material I'd like it to be a spelled out.


Sigurd

Thore_Ironrock
September 22nd, 2008, 16:25
So to be clear?

Your licensors have reduced their publication promises under the Open Game License?

The Open Game License does not cover their material if one chooses to publish for Fantasy Grounds?

Sigurd

Why is this so difficult to understand? Does everything in your world need to be free to use as you see fit? Sorry to disappoint you Sigurd, but if Digital Adventures going to invest thousands of dollars in bringing publisher's product conversions to this community then we are going to protect ourselves from someone else coming in and undercutting our investment. The MSRD for FG1 taught me that hard lesson, if you remember.

I *am not* preventing anyone from developing OGL-based material. However, if you create something for use with or based partially from an FG product that Digital Adventures has a license for, paid money to have developed, and pays licensing fees for all we are asking is that it be approved by Digital Adventures to prevent any conflict of interest. Chances are we would be happy to have people develop them if they help our products sell better, which in turn makes our licensors happy. All you have to do is ask.

OGL agreements are, at face value, for RPG material in printed or PDF form, and not for *software* (which FG is) unless otherwise stated or trumped by another agreement. Otherwise companies would come along and create video games and what-not for properties where that is not covered under copyright. In fact, Savage Worlds for FG almost did not happen because of other software agreements that PEG has already. That is just one example.

This part of my contract is also my pledge to the publishers that their intellectual properties and copyrights are going to be respected and protected in this venue, which can be a task in itself. They want to see a return in investment from the use of their license, and that is what Digital Adventures gives them.

So Sigurd, if you can't stomach emailing me to simply *ask*, then that is your loss. I am more than willing to work with anyone in the FG world on these type of projects, but because I *sell* products people tend to think I'm against other types of initiatives in this community. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Sigurd
September 23rd, 2008, 01:49
I am sorry you feel so threatened I certainly wouldn't lump you in with other perhaps unreasonable people when you are trying to defend your interests in the market space.

I encourage everyone to read the licenses in their published material carefully. The OGL license usually only covers a subset of a publication and certainly does not cover many publications comprehensively. Publisher permission beyond the OGL very often helps to build a better product or may be essential to enjoy the work. For those publications where Digital Adventures has built a relationship with publishers in question, I would recommend you include them in any publication plans and be sure to follow the rules of the license(s) and seek the goodwill of the publishers in question.

However,

I disagree with Thore's opinion when he says the OGL does not extend to computer programs. The OGL grants "Use" of "Open Game Content" to distribute "Derivative Material".

"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted. [Underlining mine]

The license is fixed at the time of publication:

"No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License."


If the OGL license covers derivative works recast in computer format, and I believe it does, then I think it covers OGL materials for a fantasy ground publication. I am not an expert but I am offering the license parts I think relevant. (You can find the text in any work with OGL content.)




As I said, OGL content in a work is often a poor subset selection from the value of a work. I am not saying everything is or even should be free. I am not saying deny anyone their rights to a work. But given these are existing licenses for some of the works in this OPEN project I think they should be discussed openly.


Discuss all the licenses for a work, not just the last one. Do not forget any other licenses or obscure their basis and details.

Be fair and talk to other publishers involved in the market, including Digital Adventures (I was accused of being their salesman just last week :)). Fairness does not deny existing licenses without a comprehensive, tested position on them. I asked pointedly because I believed there was a more precise considered answer available.

I have tried to be fair and detailed in these posts. My other posts in this thread have discussed the OGL license too. You can decide if I just want "everything" "to be free to use as [i] see fit?"

Sigurd.

Thore_Ironrock
September 23rd, 2008, 04:08
I have tried to be fair and detailed in these posts. My other posts in this thread have discussed the OGL license too. [/FONT]You can decide if I just want "everything" "to be free to use as [i] see fit?"

Sigurd.

A fair reply. I'll digest this and give you my thoughts on the matter. My stance regarding DA products for which I have licenses still stands, as does my statement on lending to this project. Please keep that in mind.

unerwünscht
September 23rd, 2008, 04:34
I will not weigh in on DA and what licenses they do or do not possess. I don't know, and frankly I don't care.

However the OGL is what it is, it can not be changed (by a user), and no license exists to protect an individual market from the OGL. Everything published under the OGL is free and open to all, provided they follow the conditions of the OGL. Never let anyone tell you otherwise.

NO ONE does, can, or will own an exclusive interest in the SRD, MSRD, or any other OGL content, with the exception of the original publisher, who has forfeited on many protections provided to them by law, by entering their content into an Open Game environment.

Sigurd
September 23rd, 2008, 04:51
Thore, I have to tell you a far more compelling argument why, I believe, you have to embrace OGL licenses for non WOTC OGL product wherever you publish them. Seriously, add OGL statements - the whole shebang.

If your licensed works have licensed the OGL they took on obligations you can't break for them. The OGL is typically the single covenant your licensors have with WOTC. It is the grounds by which they use the core mechanics of the game. It is you who are asking for things to be free (Although I know its an expensive freedom) - you're wishing up a new permission from Wizards.

Baring other arrangements - you cannot publish except under the OGL license because if you cannot abide by the OGL your material is unlicensed and can't be published.

The license is _very_ clear on that point...


12. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the
terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Game Content due
to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any
Open Game Material so affected.

You cannot claim greater rights than your licensors without getting you and them into a peck of trouble. If your open content isn't "Open Content" what then?

Do you have, or are you ready to make alternate plans with WOTC? If so, never mind, you can fix this problem but Wizards is ending the D20 License. If you want to do anything with 3.5 rules you need a license from WOTC.


Sigurd.


This isn't just Digital Adventures, it affects everyone, not WOTC, working with 3x rules. Personally, I think the whole FG community has to make the most of OGL freedoms unless we have other ladders to the same star. Obeying and keeping this covenant should be REAL important to us.

unerwünscht
September 23rd, 2008, 05:21
The OGL is typically the single covenant your licensors have with WOTC. It is the grounds by which they use the core mechanics of the game. It is you who are asking for things to be free (Although I know its an expensive freedom) - you're wishing up a new permission from Wizards.

How is it that you and I agree so much on everything, but still can't get along on other simpler topics?

Cheers man, well said indeed.

Thore_Ironrock
September 23rd, 2008, 10:34
This isn't just Digital Adventures, it affects everyone, not WOTC, working with 3x rules. Personally, I think the whole FG community has to make the most of OGL freedoms unless we have other ladders to the same star. Obeying and keeping this covenant should be REAL important to us.

I guess I'm going finish my thoughts up by saying a few things, more specifics than anything:

1. If this whole thing is about d20/OGL/3.5 as a core issue, then I agree totally. Frankly, you can have it. My only products that fall under this category are the CSRD and MSRD, and I know where I stand with those.

2. Savage Worlds and other non-d20 products do not fall under this agreement, and that was my main concern.

3. The XML code developed by Digital Adventures is owned by Digital Adventures. That is a fact for all of our products, OGL or not. You cannot create content that uses my XML code w/o my permission, and that is part of the agreement with my licensors to protect the use of their product.

Beyond this ... have fun. It is obvious that some people would rather argue for the sake of arguing, and that is not my style anymore. Digital Adventures has done a lot of this community, and more often than not I get stabbed in the back for it. Frankly, I'm tired of it. My license agreements are what they are, and were created to protect myself, my developers, our time and financial investments, and most importantly to bring that product to this community.

Apparently it is harder for people to politely ask for something nowadays, and it is more stylish to argue *why* than have common courtesy. Guess I must be getting old.

Tenian
September 23rd, 2008, 11:23
I believe the problem here is some misconceptions about which DA products / base games are covered under the OGL. Probably because DA products include both OGL and non-OGL works.

From what I read, it seems like you are both correct and are just not clear as to the point the other is making. So to sum it up:

Sigurd: OGL products can't be restricted to a license that places further limits on it. i.e. it is not possible to claim exclusive rights to produce Fantasy Grounds II software for an OGL product.

Thore_Ironrock: Digital Adventures has exclusive rights to some NON-OGL products (Savage Worlds is mentioned specifically) and would like to be consulted on the creation of extensions tailored for those products.

Ged
September 23rd, 2008, 11:48
There is a further misconception that I believe is the key here, and I try to be as clear as I can, and apologize the tone, if it annoys someone.

Open Gaming License (OGL) is basically a licensing structure that allows licensing out content on very broad terms. The fact that a product uses OGL does not yet make any part of it usable by others. By the license conditions of OGL, only those parts of the product that are defined as Open Game Content are usable by the licensees (use meaning: to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content).

Two examples that give very different rights to the licensee:
"The entirety of the work titled XXX is Open Game Content as defined by the Open Gaming License"
"The key to the table on page 364 is Open Game Content"What I'm trying to say is, OGL by itself does not make anything publicly usable (under the terms and conditions of the OGL).

And one of the reasons why we think OGL is a good license for the Open Foundation Ruleset (OFR) project is the fact that derivative works of the OFR can be as open or as closed as needed, but they cannot claim ownership of the Open parts of the project.


Edit: to comment on the specific case of Digital Adventures, as Kevin said, the XML code etc. is owned (well, OGL actually states that the ownership does not change in any case, but I believe that Kevin meant that it is not Open Game Content) by Digital Adventures and although the product uses OGL, the code is not Open Game Content. The parts that are Open Game Content include the System Reference Document text, but that, on the other hand, is not licensed out by Digital Adventures but Wizards of the Coast (and it cannot be redefined as either open or closed content by any derivative work).

Thore_Ironrock
September 23rd, 2008, 12:25
Thore_Ironrock: Digital Adventures has exclusive rights to some NON-OGL products (Savage Worlds is mentioned specifically) and would like to be consulted on the creation of extensions tailored for those products.

To be clear ... any Fantasy Grounds "creation" that is based on or requires the use of a Digital Adventures product requires the approval of Digital Adventures. Digital Adventures pays for the right to produce *all* content from a publisher, not just any specific OGL parts. No Digital Adventures products is to be considered "OGL" at this time.

unerwünscht
September 23rd, 2008, 13:24
The XML code developed by Digital Adventures is owned by Digital Adventures. That is a fact for all of our products, OGL or not. You cannot create content that uses my XML code w/o my permission, and that is part of the agreement with my licensors to protect the use of their product.


This is a false statement that I find very offensive.

First out of respect for GED, and Goblin I will keep this civil. But Thore, you should consider either getting a better lawyer, or going to law school yourself.

The Facts:
Congress revised the federal copyright statute in 1976 to provide copyright owners with statutory protection for derivative works. A derivative work can take the form of "any work that may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represents an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.'" 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1994).

In short, a derivative work is a whole work (DA's CSRD) based on one or more other whole works (WotC SRD). Thus in the end the CSRD, and MSRD published by Digital Adventures, is in and of itself a 'derivative work' who's original copyright is the exclusive intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast a subsidiary of Hasbro. Digital Adventures LLC has no legal ability to protect such work as it clearly defaults back to the OGL.

You claim that the XML code you have wrapped around the open game content is a copyrightable material, but in fact a copyright applies to a work as a whole and you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it. Further you can not under U.S. law copyright the code that provides the format to text, only the text itself, and Under U.S. Law it classifies as a translation, and not an original computer program by the way, as your "code" is not in an executable format.

So please stop telling others what they can and can not do, and just try asking nicely for a change.

If anyone would like a legal break down of what they can and can not legally produce and distribute for Savage Worlds let me know. The information you have been provided isn't quite accurate regarding that product either.

Iron Heroes on the other hand Digital Adventures LLC can (and actually does) have a distribution contract with, however I am uncertain of the exclusivity claim, there is really no way for me to verify, other than a direct violation of that IPR, and I am not dumb enough to test those waters.

Thore_Ironrock
September 23rd, 2008, 14:31
This is a false statement that I find very offensive.

First out of respect for GED, and Goblin I will keep this civil. But Thore, you should consider either getting a better lawyer, or going to law school yourself.

The Facts:
Congress revised the federal copyright statute in 1976 to provide copyright owners with statutory protection for derivative works. A derivative work can take the form of "any work that may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represents an original work of authorship, is a 'derivative work.'" 17 U.S.C. § 101 (1994).

In short, a derivative work is a whole work (DA's CSRD) based on one or more other whole works (WotC SRD). Thus in the end the CSRD, and MSRD published by Digital Adventures, is in and of itself a 'derivative work' who's original copyright is the exclusive intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast a subsidiary of Hasbro. Digital Adventures LLC has no legal ability to protect such work as it clearly defaults back to the OGL.

You claim that the XML code you have wrapped around the open game content is a copyrightable material, but in fact a copyright applies to a work as a whole and you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it. Further you can not under U.S. law copyright the code that provides the format to text, only the text itself, and Under U.S. Law it classifies as a translation, and not an original computer program by the way, as your "code" is not in an executable format.

So please stop telling others what they can and can not do, and just try asking nicely for a change.

If anyone would like a legal break down of what they can and can not legally produce and distribute for Savage Worlds let me know. The information you have been provided isn't quite accurate regarding that product either.

Iron Heroes on the other hand Digital Adventures LLC can (and actually does) have a distribution contract with, however I am uncertain of the exclusivity claim, there is really no way for me to verify, other than a direct violation of that IPR, and I am not dumb enough to test those waters.

Blah blah blah ... my legal Googling is better than yours ... my dad can beat up your dad ... blah blah blah. Whatever Michael (BTW, you're really not fooling anyone you know).

For the record, I never specifically said the CSRD and MSRD in any of my previous posts, so stop coming back to that. It is really getting old. I already said I was all for OGL with those products, if you would care to read my other posts ... or ASK ME IN A CIVILIZED MANNER. My statements (and points of fact for getting involved in this thread anyway) were for "licensed" products. Sorry if I didn't spell that out for you in black and white and 20 point type.

You always seem to SO "pissed off" by me, my developers, and the fact that I'm trying to sell anything at all and make a few dollars for people who do hard work to bring this community quality FG products. Sorry, I don't have the stomach for porn, so I try to make my money in a different manner.

And as for Savage Worlds, if you think Shane is going to rule against me in anything regarding a property that he is part owner ... I heard swamp land is selling at a good price nowadays.

Oh ... and for the record, more than a few people have emailed me asking why you have such vile venom for me and my company, and I won't salt this forum with some of the things that are said in those emails. For a guy that was banned from Gen Con you seem to know everything there is about RPGs, legal matters, and what it is to be a publisher in this industry. You're much more qualified than me I'm sure.

You know ... I'm really sorry I ever got involved in this thread to ask people to SIMPLY ask and be polite and respect our hard work for this community. I guess that really was too much to ask.

unerwünscht
September 23rd, 2008, 15:14
You always seem to SO "pissed off" by me, my developers, and the fact that I'm trying to sell anything at all and make a few dollars for people who do hard work to bring this community quality FG products. Sorry, I don't have the stomach for porn, so I try to make my money in a different manner.

Congratulations, you figured out that Everyone who works here is named Michael. To help everyone out, Trinity Intrigue consists of 4 "official" employees. Michael Perdue (owner and operator), Michael Cannon (game logic's, and local Ogre), Michael Tuttle (Myself, Legal and Public Relations) and the glorious and wonderful Miss Athena Hollow (also an owner).

Now onto your statement of libel. It happens to hold factual that I support you and your desire to sell products (The CSRD excluded). Even the MSRD has original art work that holds a value as a highly involved work or art, and the MSRD product is well worth the price you are charging for it.

As for the Savage Worlds, and Iron Heroes products, I regret that I have no need for them, however I support your choice to sell those products as well. And infact think you have done a good thing by giving a little more attention to systems that might not have otherwise been heard of by many people.

As to you as a person I maintain a stance of "No Further Comment"

And just so you know, I do work for a company that also owns a porn company that is correct, and when I was hired on I was hired to work for the porn company. However a few months ago I was transferred from the pron company to the parent company, and moved to a new project that does not involve adult content in any way. It does however involve making decisions on what products to release on what products not to release. Or would you like to challenge me again on my knowledge of Intellectual Property Law?

Thore_Ironrock
September 23rd, 2008, 15:35
Again ... whatever. Have fun storming the castle!

Bidmaron
September 23rd, 2008, 23:50
I'd just like to ask: When do we get started? And who is driving the bus? The ole thread seems to have gone far astray.

unerwünscht
September 24th, 2008, 01:24
I'd just like to ask: When do we get started? And who is driving the bus? The ole thread seems to have gone far astray.

We are discussing the legal aspect of an open project, I don't feel the topic has strayed much at all.

However, I would say that from a legal stand point, it would be best if whoever is leading the project is not attached to another gaming company or site. That puts a lot of people (including myself) out of the list. But trust when I say corporate disattachment is needed on this project.

So why don't you lead it Birdmaron?

Bidmaron
September 24th, 2008, 02:15
unerwunscht,
All I've done so far is the work in progress on the FG2 Help module. I really don't feel qualified to lead the effort until I get my feet wet in ruleset coding. I'd be the blind leading the visionaries.

Oberoten
September 24th, 2008, 08:04
Right.... So how about we start getting the show on the road?

I am going to start to strip down the basic D20 ruleset to not even have a ruleset on load. Just chat, lighting and character selection.

Oberoten
September 24th, 2008, 08:25
Okay, stripping out the charactersheet was simple enough...

I then lifted it into an extension. I will make a folder on my server for it if that is okay with everyone? (Aka, I will wait for permission for it first...) But I have now a working base functionality with the charactersheet lifted out to the side as an extension.

- Obe

Sigurd
September 24th, 2008, 12:48
I think anything constructive is good. I think there is a lot of room for smaller projects that will help get those interested up to speed with XLM, Lua etc...

I don't think the license discussion has been off topic.

These are the Goals offered by Goblin King. Since anything useful has to work with Smiteworks I think they bear some focus.



The goals
Create a ruleset containing the most basic functionality shared in some form by practically all rulesets, such as the chat window, story pages and images
Create a basis for new rulesets to build on
Use a license that enables both commercial and non-commercial use, to support parties who work with RPG publishers to bring their games to Fantasy Grounds (OGL would seem to fit the bill initially)
Build a framework that defines a common interface point for extensions
Define a convention for some generic graphical resources that could be used to build rules agnostic extensions without having to define and include new graphics assets
Create a central location for the development and distribution of innovative new componentsAt the moment, I'm just talking about plans, of course. I don't have a specific process to present or suggest. Any discussion on that topic is welcome.

What do people, who are primarily players, have to offer? Perhaps wants and dreams.

1 ) Are we talking about an OGL ruleset with modularity for easily adapting other games?

2) Could we work out a number of Die Rolling extensions to encompass the other systems out there? Or should the basic program simply be expanded to cover more Dice plans? Is there a way to make a universal die configurator that sets up "Custom Die#1,2,etc.." in such a way that the DM can make their own?

3) Using a Morrowind analogy, are extensions going to be universal Modules for place and things?

My First Request: Could we have two breeds of Extensions? One open to the gaming group and one controlled by Smiteworks. Could they be kept in different name spaces.
I'd like to set up an acceptance policy where it is easy to avoid new and untested extensions.

I think we have to talk about and be clear on the interelations of these parts.



Proposition:

A central extension includes a town with selectable resources. A little check box accepts\rejects 'blacksmith SM' as a portion of the town. Blacksmith SM (Blacksmith Smiteworks) is a vendor created as a separate smaller component for the town extension. These vendors would have different lists of goods according to a base game system flag in the main scenario. We would not write these lists, they would be populated for each game system and might be part of a given module.

We have to come up with a universal base game list where each game type has only one identifier flag\number. That could be shared to increase interoperability.

joshuha
September 24th, 2008, 13:26
Okay, stripping out the charactersheet was simple enough...

I then lifted it into an extension. I will make a folder on my server for it if that is okay with everyone? (Aka, I will wait for permission for it first...) But I have now a working base functionality with the charactersheet lifted out to the side as an extension.

- Obe


Obe I have this done for the sheet, tracker, images, story, and npc nodes (all rolled into extensions). I am just making a few more modifications and will release my work soon. I stripped all the sheets to just a name field and removed the d20 license info from all files.

Oberoten
September 24th, 2008, 13:28
Ah well. I'll scrap this then.

Ram Tyr
September 24th, 2008, 16:00
Given that some posters seem to me to not want the discussion to take place or are not interested in the discussion, I leave it to Tero to invite it to continue if he believes it is needed. I, as I tried to make plain earlier, have no dog in this fight other than as a potential user of the rulesets / extensions that might be created. I am certainly not interested in alienating others by continuing the conversation where it is not welcome. (I hope that this is crystal clear, at the very least based on my history here on the FG boards.) (I should also say I am not interested in participating in a conversation with folks that cannot remain civil and I entirely understand wanting the conversation to go away as long as civility is not expected and required of all members of the community. On this front, I understand the desire for the conversation to go away.)

I take the shift of 'topic' of this thread as a sign of such disinterest. (Note, I do not say that this is 'off topic' as it is related to the original post, much as the earlier discussion was. Either conversation could be moved to its own thread with a note in this thread containing a link.)

Which brings me to noting that I do not believe that the license discussion was off topic by any means. In truth, the disagreement over the interpretation of the OGL discussed earlier in this thread was exactly what this discussion could avoid in the future. That someone could release an OGL product and expect that nobody else can rely on the OGL to do the same is a misunderstanding of the license. (A common misunderstanding of the OGL which I referenced in an earlier post in this thread.) Discussions such as this are meant to ensure that such misunderstandings do not arise. As we have all seen, people do not take it well when their work can be used in a way they did not anticipate, or do not approve of, and will angrily guard their understanding of the limits on the uses of their work. Others will take offense at such misunderstandings, never mind whether they have misunderstandings of their own.

Having a conversation such as was taking place allows smiteworks the benefit of:
Supporting the conversation for the benefit of the community.
Participating in the brainstorming, possibly improving the project.
Even if the project does not improve as a result, smiteworks will be able to point to the conversation when new community members challenge decisions that were made.
When challenges to the decisions do arise, smiteworks can look at the conversation to refresh their memory as to why decisions were made and whether the logic still holds.
In any event; be well, be strong, be smart until we game together.

unerwünscht
September 24th, 2008, 17:39
Where is this shift in topic? Thore and I were having a VERY civil conversation (seeing as it was he and I) that was VERY on topic. The legal matters involved in the community project need to be addressed as much as if not more than the project as a whole.

And we have come to the FIRM agreement that Digital Adventures LLC does without a doubt have an exclusivity contract regarding Iron Heroes, I would not tempt nor test the waters when it comes to Savage Worlds, and he agrees that the SRD is what it is, and anyone is welcome to make an SRD.

All points of that conversation pertain directly to the topic at hand.

Bidmaron
September 25th, 2008, 01:51
It was on topic, but I'm more interested in getting to work. Joshuha, what would you like me to do? I'm very conversant in XML and have played a little with LUA. Give me a task, and I'll see what I can do.

wavecutter
September 25th, 2008, 16:47
Just putting in my 2 cents here. I do not believe that this project should be saddled with Digital Adventures. Cut them out of the picture and you wont face a plethora of problems down the road.

It should be a wholly community project from stem to stern. I believe that more people would be inclined to participate in an "open" game project if it was really "open" and not being manhandled by DA.

Foen
September 25th, 2008, 16:55
I have no problem being excluded from contributing from the project (being affiliated with DA), as I understand it is fully SmiteWorks' intention to let me draw from it to help create DA rulesets.

On the other hand, I could always contribute as well as withdraw ... your call really.

Stuart

wavecutter
September 25th, 2008, 17:04
I've got no problem with DA members contributing in as long as it's a contribution with no strings attached and by you as an individual, not you as a DA employee.

RiverRat
September 25th, 2008, 17:08
Does that mean that anyone/everyone who is affiliated with DA would/should not participate in this project? Isn't DA part of the community? I would like to think so. If you were to exclude those of us that are affiliated with DA then you would be missing out on a some great talent (myself excluded).

Just my $0.02.

RR

unerwünscht
September 25th, 2008, 17:09
Just putting in my 2 cents here. I do not believe that this project should be saddled with Digital Adventures. Cut them out of the picture and you wont face a plethora of problems down the road.

It should be a wholly community project from stem to stern. I believe that more people would be inclined to participate in an "open" game project if it was really "open" and not being manhandled by DA.

I don't think you are going to end up with a single "community project"
I see this going as far as stripping the d20 ruleset down to its core, and creating extensions from its removed functions.

After that is done there will be a solid split. The Digital Adventures crew will take the code and run with it, and slap their name on any content they make using it, the FUM crew will do the same, and the open project coders will not be able to keep up. The end user will be stuck paying even more money for Fantasy Grounds, because now he is going to have to spend $5-$10 per nifty feature he would like to use.

Congratulations, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

wavecutter
September 25th, 2008, 17:14
Perhaps I should expand on my first post in this thread.

I believe that this project is an awesome idea. But I have some concerns.

1: As a ruleset that is open to contributions by the community, will said community have to pay for a product it helped create?

2: Will the "community" have to jump through hoops to produce derivative works of a product that it helped create?

3: Will the community be constrained in what it can and cannot do with a product of it's own making?

I guess those are my chief concerns.

When someone says to me that they want help on an "open" "community" project to me that means it is a project for and by the community. That any community member can obtain the product of it's labor at no additional cost. Also I believe that a community member aught to be able to create works with the "open" and "community" work as they please as long as it complies with some sort of OGL.

wavecutter
September 25th, 2008, 17:17
Does that mean that anyone/everyone who is affiliated with DA would/should not participate in this project? Isn't DA part of the community? I would like to think so. If you were to exclude those of us that are affiliated with DA then you would be missing out on a some great talent (myself excluded).

Just my $0.02.

RR

DA is a corporate presence in the community. It's individual employees are members of the community as individuals. I think they should be allowed to contribute but I would not want their contributions to be affiliated with their employer.

joshuha
September 25th, 2008, 17:34
I don't think you are going to end up with a single "community project"
I see this going as far as stripping the d20 ruleset down to its core, and creating extensions from its removed functions.

After that is done there will be a solid split. The Digital Adventures crew will take the code and run with it, and slap their name on any content they make using it, the FUM crew will do the same, and the open project coders will not be able to keep up. The end user will be stuck paying even more money for Fantasy Grounds, because now he is going to have to spend $5-$10 per nifty feature he would like to use.

Congratulations, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse.

FUM actually doesn't sell rulesets. We host community created rulesets like 4E and GURPS. One of the reasons I quit both DA and Smiteworks is so I would have NO conflicts of interest and able to release things freely to the community.

unerwünscht
September 25th, 2008, 17:36
To be perfectly honest with you, it is quite simple. Any corporate entity involved is going to sell your code back to you. It doesn't have to be DA, or FUM, or Trinity Intrigue, or Smite Works. The blame here is non exclusive. All of us that own or work for a company are going to profit from your hard work in some way, shape or form.

There is nothing that can be done about it, and there is really no point in talking about it any further. Lets just focus down, and get the stripped code distributed, so we can all start generating base code for the community, and then start stealing code from one another to make better products that we can all sell.

wavecutter
September 25th, 2008, 17:47
To be perfectly honest with you, it is quite simple. Any corporate entity involved is going to sell your code back to you. It doesn't have to be DA, or FUM, or Trinity Intrigue, or Smite Works. The blame here is non exclusive. All of us that own or work for a company are going to profit from your hard work in some way, shape or form.

There is nothing that can be done about it, and there is really no point in talking about it any further. Lets just focus down, and get the stripped code distributed, so we can all start generating base code for the community, and then start stealing code from one another to make better products that we can all sell.

So you are saying that we should accept the fact that you
want us to do your work and pay you for it?

I think you are a parasite on the goodwill of this community.

unerwünscht
September 25th, 2008, 17:47
FUM actually doesn't sell rulesets. We host community created rulesets like 4E and GURPS. One of the reasons I quit both DA and Smiteworks is so I would have NO conflicts of interest and able to release things freely to the community.

Here is a prime example of what I was saying. Sorry to point the finger at FUM, I really couldn't think of anyone doing this. FUM doesn't sell their rulesets (and supposedly the extensions once they start coming out). This is a truth. However they sell token packs. Its called a "circle jerk" sale platform. They pull you in with free content, and then sell to you the content they are actually selling. Its actually a rather good business model, and very similar to what we do on our site.

The more common example would be a site that sold no content at all but buried the content deep in the site, and then put banner ads on the site. As you navigate from page to page, they are making money (however not much) from you surfing their site.

Our model is a little different but in practice still the same. We also provide free content as a way to draw you into our site, and then from that traffic we increase our potential advertising value (tho we have no real advertising on the site). As that potential grows, we will eventually sell off the echo site, and make a some money off of it.

So as I said EVERYONE involved with a company is going to benefit from the use of your code. Maybe everyone here should start a company and just leach off of each other. We could all set up a massive advertising platform, and swarm our user traffic.

unerwünscht
September 25th, 2008, 17:53
So you are saying that we should accept the fact that you
want us to do your work and pay you for it?

I think you are a parasite on the goodwill of this community.

No I am saying when in Rome do as the Romans do.
And you are right I am parasite, but there is no goodwill left here. Everyone providing content here benefits from it in some way. I have not, and will not ever sell anything to the community, and I will hazard to guess that I will make more money off the community than anyone else.

wavecutter
September 25th, 2008, 17:57
No I am saying when in Rome do as the Romans do.

I say, good day to you Sir!

wavecutter
September 25th, 2008, 18:07
If the product of this so called community project isn't free to
the community the may I humbly suggest to call it a colaboration
between competing corporate interests.

Sorontar
September 25th, 2008, 18:21
If the product of this so called community project isn't free to
the community the may I humbly suggest to call it a colaboration
between competing corporate interests.

Well the free project - by the people, for the people - is the other project isn't it or did I miss something?

unerwünscht
September 25th, 2008, 18:51
I thought it was determined that both projects had the same end goal, and thus we are waiting for a stripped down base ruleset, which has been made by at least 3 people at this point.

This is getting very confusing. Is there an open project?
If so is this it?

wavecutter
September 25th, 2008, 18:54
I think it was mentioned that there isn't much reason to have two seperate but widely over lapping projects.

wavecutter
September 25th, 2008, 18:59
I must apologize to the community at large. I was drawn into
The more negative aspect of the argument.

I'd be happy if the end result of this project was incorporated
Into FG as part of the product you get with a licensed copy of FG.

Sorontar
September 25th, 2008, 20:24
I must have missed a post that made the decision to go with one project, the last I read and it still appears to be the case even discounting Wavecutter that there are some people who do not want to have any of their work used to make money for Development Teams.

Personally I have no opinion (makes a change I know) as I am not a codemonkey and will not be developing anything.

Foen
September 25th, 2008, 20:50
It's the wrong end of a night for me to offer an opinion, so I'll leave you with a thought instead:

If Smite Works, DA and all those other commercial folks got together, built something neat, included it in their own products and then invited modders to copy, amend, and re-release it without fees or licences (other than a requirement to give as freely as you received), would there be a problem here at all?

Have a good night

Stuart

joshuha
September 25th, 2008, 21:57
Here is a prime example of what I was saying. Sorry to point the finger at FUM, I really couldn't think of anyone doing this. FUM doesn't sell their rulesets (and supposedly the extensions once they start coming out). This is a truth. However they sell token packs. Its called a "circle jerk" sale platform. They pull you in with free content, and then sell to you the content they are actually selling. Its actually a rather good business model, and very similar to what we do on our site.

The more common example would be a site that sold no content at all but buried the content deep in the site, and then put banner ads on the site. As you navigate from page to page, they are making money (however not much) from you surfing their site.

Our model is a little different but in practice still the same. We also provide free content as a way to draw you into our site, and then from that traffic we increase our potential advertising value (tho we have no real advertising on the site). As that potential grows, we will eventually sell off the echo site, and make a some money off of it.

So as I said EVERYONE involved with a company is going to benefit from the use of your code. Maybe everyone here should start a company and just leach off of each other. We could all set up a massive advertising platform, and swarm our user traffic.

And if the open project I am working on is released here and I don't care who or which sites host the files what does that say? I only joined FUM as it was centralized place for multiple VT users to come together and I do test and use other VTs like Maptool and Battlegrounds. You also mention "their" rulesets but FUM doesn't make rulesets, its all based on the community groups. If JPG or Spyke want to remove their custom rulesets and go somewhere else they can. Heck, their may be other groups hosting custom rulesets I don't know about.

In the end that doesn't really matter. The stripped down "base" ruleset I am working on is almost done, I will choose one of the Creative Common licenses to distribute it (haven't decide which yet) and after that anyone can have it. I will release it here on the FG forums like I do with all my tools (like the FG Chat Log cleaner).

unerwünscht
September 25th, 2008, 22:28
If Smite Works, DA and all those other commercial folks got together, built something neat, included it in their own products and then invited modders to copy, amend, and re-release it without fees or licences (other than a requirement to give as freely as you received), would there be a problem here at all?

At this point I don't really care at all. There is only one "mod" to the application that I am wanting, and after looking into the new functionality of the application, it still can not be done with what we have been given.


In the end that doesn't really matter. The stripped down "base" ruleset I am working on is almost done, I will choose one of the Creative Common licenses to distribute it (haven't decide which yet) and after that anyone can have it. I will release it here on the FG forums like I do with all my tools (like the FG Chat Log cleaner).

Sorry my direct reference was to Obi. If I am not mistaken he had said he finished the strip down of the set, and almost finished the modularization (wow its actually a word?) of the elements. I did know you were working on doing it as well, but thought we had already come to the determination that yours was going to have a license attached and his was not. There was also another person working on one, who wanted to pop it out with the OGL, but I have since lost his thread.

Oberoten
September 25th, 2008, 22:33
I thought it was determined that both projects had the same end goal, and thus we are waiting for a stripped down base ruleset, which has been made by at least 3 people at this point.

This is getting very confusing. Is there an open project?
If so is this it?

....

Goddess allmighty... I think I am about to start seeing red. I don't know if it is the migraine (quite possible) or just sheer pissedness at how no thread can be left alone to be constructive anymore.

As long as the foundation is free work, stripping out the basic D20 parts is as pointed out not hard, and there has been people contributing for free for anyone to use before...

Look, before you keep harassing anyone contributing, I am going to be pissy right back. Put your money where your mouth is and contribute with something before attacking those who do.

So far, we have seen a LOT of talk, and very little useful scripting. I know fully well that you aren't the only one on this... but this little outburst, and the risk of Foen and Joshua both being alienated out of this project makes me wish for the peace and quiet of the boards just a few months back.

I don't know what the real reason is for your griveances with these people are, but they really don't need to be flagged in everyone's face at every opporunity possible to concieve.

I am probably posting a bit harsher than I'd normally do, but right now I have a migraine playing jinglebells with my eyes, and a workweek from hell ahead of me. These boards are one of the places I go to relax.. guess what? I am NOT relaxed.

- Obe

unerwünscht
September 26th, 2008, 00:56
I'm really not trying to single anyone out man.... I truly thought both projects had been merged, and I truly thought there were more than one person working on stripped down versions of the core. I knew you at one point were working on it (and I thought had finished it, and were just waiting for permission to release it.)

Here is my advice on the whole matter, Just ignore the user icon, and screen name and pretend it came form someone else if that's what it takes to get you all to truly listen.

joshuha, use the license that you think best fits your product. Don't worry about what anyone else thinks. If you go with a license the alienates the corporate sector they will just make a new product that suits their needs. If you make one that alienates the non-corporate people they will do the same.

Oberoten, don't abandon your work just because someone else is working on the same thing. You never know how things will pan out.

Thore, keep on rockin on man, I know there is a misconception that I hate you and everything you release and stand for but, it isn't true. My distaste for you is limited to one product, and I truly and honestly think all other products I have seen from your company are quality.

Everyone else, don't bother with the legal aspect of this project. It's a joke. You as a person do not have the money required to win against any of these companies in court, and none of these companies have anything to gain from shutting you down. It would cost them more in court fees than what they would gain from it in the end.

As a final note, I think there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 tokens available on my site for free. Go grab them, they are open content. Make a package with them do as you please. They will be gone on Saturday night. Hell Thore if you want to sell them be my guest send me a PM and I will even send you the high rez version of them, and the 100 or so that we didn't release.

Peace all. I'm gonna sit on the side lines and watch the community burn.

wavecutter
September 26th, 2008, 02:24
Peace all. I'm gonna sit on the side lines and watch the community burn.

Was that bit of trolling really necessary?

Bidmaron
September 26th, 2008, 02:34
Joshuha, I nominate you as our fearless leader. As a follower, I stand ready to assist. Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss the actual work of the project and let this thread continue to discuss more ethereal matters. Let's go!

Sigurd
September 26th, 2008, 06:41
I think there is a whole whack of credit that is not being given to the 'corporate entities' here. They have paid people to learn the game structure and been very good about fostering a general state of positive learning. Their writers are better for experiences with a deadline and a professional project.

We're all typing for free on a website owned and paid for by Smiteworks. Most every really good programmer for rulesets has done work for Digital Adventures. The other really interesting website on the web belongs to FUM who host commercial projects. These are people I appreciate.

Licenses serve a purpose. I think the OGL with its ability to be used in commercial work is really important. I can see the point about making contributions by programmer name because it'd be good to thank the person in question but I just can't demonize any of the businesses involved in Fantasy Gounds. If people feel they are contributing as a company they're contribution should be recognized that way. As long as they agree to the license it's all fine.

Everyone seems against businesses until its their own job on the block. Most of the people who play the game don't want to program or even know how the game works - let them spend a couple of bucks to keep the ball rolling. I'm not going to lose sleep over someone paying a little money to join the community or get some entertainment.

The OGL requires that you designate what is and isn't OGL. I really want to strive for the community work being OGL in its entirety. No confusion by anyone and simple simple simple. Don't contribute what you don't want to give away. Why should we have a situation where we have to spend $300 in effort to make sure one person gets $20 in pay for something.

I don't care if people reuse work to make an item for sale. That item will preserve the free work that a free project can pull from it later. That item will likely have refinements that will be added to the free material and help everyone.

If you think you can make something popular for people and the community expands, and its a good project, and you pay good people, and you make this more interesting, and you make a buck at it, good for you. When did anyone ever put a gun to peoples head to buy a graphic a module or a ruleset?

Seriously FG, is as valuable as you make it by using it. I just haven't seen any gouging or negative sales corporations out there. Where's the beef?

I think we need to have a situation of mutual respect and appreciation or we need to have two projects. Perhaps a commercial framework with opportunities for free content expansions or .....?

But lets not under appreciate some decent companies in a very small market.

Sigurd

Tristram
September 26th, 2008, 06:51
I must agree with Bidmaron that it would probably be best to have one thread for actual work on the project and another for the legal aspects. By time the legal thread has gotten nowhere other pointless namecalling and speculation on what everyone else is really up to, the thread of actual work will be done and have a great product that everyone will appreciate. At least then there will be a real and fully finished product to talk about. Right now there is a lot of hot air over something that doesn't exist yet. I am sure there are plenty of people who want to contribute to the project no matter how its used just to be able to have the product in the first place. Working on the project that includes Smiteworks makes sense to me since Fantasy Grounds is their work in the first place and I'm sure they'd be a great help. They have done right by the community and I don't worry about how they will use the project. For those who worry about their work being used to make money for someone else chances are that they won't trust anyone's assurance otherwise anyway and many will create their own projects independantly. So be it.

My three cents,
-Tristram

joshuha
September 26th, 2008, 12:38
Joshuha, I nominate you as our fearless leader. As a follower, I stand ready to assist. Maybe we should start a new thread to discuss the actual work of the project and let this thread continue to discuss more ethereal matters. Let's go!

I would not mind leading this effort. But I already have a base ruleset that is almost the same but not quite ready to go. I am going to post that today.

But as far as Smiteworks sponsored one that gets official patch support and assistance I would be fine leading that effort as well if both Smiteworks and most of the contributors would not object.

wavecutter
September 26th, 2008, 15:17
Sigurd,

You are right. I apologize if I have seemed unappreciative twords the contributions of our corporate peers. I guess that I was just concerned that a corporate interest would put a tight grip on the ip of a community project. I should have vocalized that concern directly. I really do like all of the options that are available to the users of Fantasy Grounds. Those options are available to us because of these companies. So to remove all ambiguity, Thank you Smite Works, Four Ugly Monsters, and Digital Adventures.

That being said, I'd be willing to do some writing for the project. I'm not a coder by a long shot but I am capable of writing at a college level. Need descriptions or explanations? Perhaps some editing? I'd be willing to do it under whichever license the community chooses.

Bidmaron
September 27th, 2008, 02:10
Joshuha, as you noted from my post, I'd like to see you lead it.
1) You are very knowledgeable on rulesets, having written your own.
2) You voiced a willingness to participate.
3) You've been very active on these boards and are a well-respected member of the community.

joshuha
September 27th, 2008, 02:13
Sure, but again there is some confusion. I would love the lead or have a major role in the Smiteworks sponsored one. However, I am still going to release in a few hours my "base" stripped down ruleset as start. Whether that gets rolled into the "universal" ruleset is yet to be known. I have some ideas on organization and will definitely need help with documentation, graphics, and some other things that I will post later when I have some time.

Bidmaron
September 27th, 2008, 02:32
Thanks for your work, Joshuha. When you get ready, I'm standing by for tasking, and I'm willing to do documentation, graphics, coding, whatever you need. (really itching to code)

turelus
September 27th, 2008, 22:04
Just a quick question I did have a quick (very quick) browse of this thread and I was just wondering what edition you would be planning the ruleset for?

Oberoten
September 27th, 2008, 22:41
Just a quick question I did have a quick (very quick) browse of this thread and I was just wondering what edition you would be planning the ruleset for?

The very idea of this generic/Open set is to have a base for anyone running any RPG whatsoever to start working from to have full functionality once they are done.

- Obe

Griogre
September 28th, 2008, 02:16
Further continuing Obe's comment, the idea would also be that the base would be for the latest version of Fantasy Grounds. With Smiteworks support of such a low level base, the base would be updated with every patch and work with the current version of FG most of the time automatically.

turelus
September 28th, 2008, 10:57
Awesome thanks :)