Okay, a lot of people have their own opinions on this subject, and
have expressed them here, but enough please.
Unless you _ARE_ a lawyer, debating these points here is useless.
Bryan has said it before (and probably will again), but PCGen, the
program part of it, is an Interpreter only. It interprets
information provided by the list files.
The list files _MAY_ be another issue, but I am not a lawyer, so
won't go into it (it's been debated enough here already).
Bryan, myself, and a number of other people HAVE contacted several
publishers about using their material in the list files. Several
have flat out said yes, most are non-comittal, and understandably
so, but haven't said no. They have concern over giving away rights
to their property, and If I didn't know what PCGen was, and I was a
publisher, I would be concerned as well. But I don't believe any
publishers have said no (Originally Monte Cook did, but that was
BEFORE he saw what PCGen was and did).
Personally, I firmly believe the best way to show these companies we
are not 'taking' their hard work is to make a list file set of one
of their sources and package it up nice and neat with only that, e-
mail it to them with an explanation of what to do and how it works,
and let them PLAY with it. The best way to get permission is to
show them that this is an enhancement to thier products, not a
All that said, can we please drop the thread of compliancy and
permissions. Everyone that works on PCGen is keenly aware of the
issues and is trying actively to make sure we don't have any
problems with anyone.
In the end, PCGen is an enhancement to Source Material, not a
To quote Dennis Miller, These are my thoughts, not yours.