App for Generating Worlds

[Tay]

Tay I am not saying what your doing it wrong, I am just saying use it as a base and then Tweek the results as you go along. In the long run you will be happier.

I do. I use the tool to do just that. I , like yourself am a long term gamer. Picked up my first LBB's back in 82, and still have them. I remember rushing home from school just to roll up a planet or a marine. Now I drive 2 hrs to get home from work and then collapse. I wish I was 12 again

[GamerDude]

Just had a reply from Matt stating along as I comply with the OGL (Which I believe I am) then what I am doing is fine.

Excellent

See that was easy... just ask Matt and reach an understanding.

[Wil Mireu]

See that was easy... just ask Matt and reach an understanding.

I think it would have been much better if Matt had shown some basic understanding of how the OGL worked in the first place, before asking the OP to stop working on this. Then none of this would have happened at all.

But still, all's well that ends well.

[Sturn]

Ignore the legaleeze for a second.

Who owns Traveller? Marc Miller. Who has he given permission to make Traveller stuff? Mongoose. Who controls Mongoose? Matt. Does Matt want you to do this? Apparently not. So, yes, it's the honorable thing to not do it.

Matt isn't telling you not to make non-Traveller planet generation software. Just Traveller software.

I may agree with the strict legal interpretation posted above, but it is pretty simple determining what the right thing to do is. Intent of the law vs. word of the law.

[Sturn]

See that was easy... just ask Matt and reach an understanding.

I think it would have been much better if Matt had shown some basic understanding of how the OGL worked in the first place, before asking the OP to stop working on this. Then none of this would have happened at all.

But still, all's well that ends well.

Perhaps Matt is not an attorney and he just thought fans would/should do the right thing.

[FreeTrav]

Tay, my rant was not directed at you, neither for doing the software in the first place, nor for approaching Matt to work out what has proven to be a satisfactory resolution to the issue. I am assuming that your approach to Matt was not one based on the thesis "You can't tell me not to release this; the OGL says I can, and rules/processes can't be copyrighted anyway!", as it appeared some in this thread were advocating; rather, I am assuming that you approached him saying "I'd like to understand what your objection is; here's what I've done, and these are my sources; can we work something out?" THAT is the approach that I would advocate; it has a fundamentally better chance of favorable results.

By all means, understand the details of the relevant license(s), whether TLL, OGL, FFSL, Traveller Fair-Use, or whatever. Disagree with the licensor's interpretation, if appropriate. But resolve the difference of opinion politely and with a cooperative approach, not with a combative approach as appeared to me to be what was advocated from certain quarters. THAT approach is, IMO, more likely to result in Matt - or Steve, or Marc - saying "Enough of this, shut it all down, I don't want to keep dealing with this." Likely? I don't think so, given the past support for fanac in the Traveller community. But not out of the realm of possibility; the industry is rife with stories - admittedly, mostly from early days, and centered on one or two particularly egregious examples - in which licensors tried to completely bar fanac. But in an era where some industry associations have won outrageous judgements against individuals whose "offender" status was questionable, can you really afford to count on a history of forbearance? Especially when "open source", "crowd source", and "fair use" are under attack? It wouldn't take more than one counter-incident...

Tay, when you are ready to distribute your program, I would welcome the opportunity to host it in Freelance Traveller's Computer Connection. Please contact me via email (editor@freelancetraveller.com) if you are interested.

[Wil Mireu]

Tay, when you are ready to distribute your program, I would welcome the opportunity to host it in Freelance Traveller's Computer Connection. Please contact me via email (editor@freelancetraveller.com) if you are interested.

You've got a hell of a nerve to ask him that, given that you still haven't apologized for your behavior (all you've done is make excuses for it).

All you did was project your own misplaced paranoia about how it would affect your magazine, and now you're trying to weasel out of what you said earlier. Nobody (not even me) suggested that anybody should be aggressive about this, but fact is that if someone demands something you may need to confront them about their demands to see if they have the authority to make them. It's quite possible to confront them "politely"... but there are no "negotiations" required here - Mongoose needed to explain their justification for demanding that he stop work on his software, and once it was shown that their interpretation was incorrect, they needed to back down from their demands that they had no authority to make. It is that simple.

[Wil Mireu]

Ignore the legaleeze for a second.

No, because the legalese is what matters.

The right thing to do is to stand up for your rights and challenge people who are making demands, which is what Tay did - sometimes it may turn out that they do have the authority to make those demands, and other times (such as this instance) they do not. The wrong thing to do is buckle without question when someone demands something, because if they don't have the authority to do that then they can just keep doing that and get away with it.

And maybe "Matt isn't an attorney", but you'd think that a publisher who released that material under specific licenses would have a basic understanding of how they worked. Or would have got a lawyer to go over them for him and explain it to him so that they understood exactly what they were doing.

[Sturn]

Ignore the legaleeze for a second.

No, because the legalese is what matters.

Ok I'm sorry, but I guess I live in a different world than you. Where I'm from it's doing the right thing that matters.

[Wil Mireu]

Ok I'm sorry, but I guess I live in a different world than you. Where I'm from it's doing the right thing that matters.

Sometimes "doing the right thing" and "following the legalese" do actually coincide. But it seems in your world people just buckle when someone demands they do something, and pay licensing fees when they don't have to. So I'm glad I live in my world and not yours .

[AndrewW]

At this point the issue has been resolved. How about everyone just agrees to disagree and move on? Perhaps return this thread to discussion of the world generator for example.

[phavoc]

One thing to keep in mind when it comes to the law is that there are two ways to address any issue. The first being the actual law, and using the law as it is written and accepted as a way to defend yourself (or to go after someone else, depending on what position you are in). This sometimes involves lawyers, courts, judgements, etc.

The second, and one that is far more prevalent than anyone truly realizes, is to bluff your way to getting your way. Many people, upon seeing/hearing a seemingly well-designed argument that looks and sounds legal will back off, fearing legal action. And, depending on how important this is, and how much your attorney will charge you, they'll go further and threaten using legal letterhead and a real lawyer. But notice that they haven't filed suit... Which generally means they either have a weak case, or they are bluffing. Again, most people will feel wary and threatened enough to back off and not pursue it further unless (like Freetrav) feel very, very personal about the issue. At times like that your zeal to defend yourself can be both a blessing and a curse. Generally speaking, of course.

Most laws are written so that if you take a little bit of time, you can unwind the legalese and figure out just what the hell they say/mean. And when someone threatens you with legal action, and especially if they did not provide the statute / law they are citing... chances are they are trying to bluff you into backing down. If the DO provide the information, then its easy enough to see if they are blowing smoke or not.

But the internet is your friend. As I posted earlier in this thread, YOU can easily research the law and see if what you are doing violates it (in this case, its Copyright law). A search engine should be your second best cousin. With it you can research case law, previous cases, previous rulings, etc. Don't be afraid to use it.

At the end of the day, this is all about a game. For MgT and Mark Miller, its also about commerce. So they do have a reasonable view (and legal position) to defend their business. In this case it would appear that no law was broken, no license violated. A simple request was enough to end the desire to share. But further review, and some squawking, seems to have shown that this was a "misunderstanding". Which is often how things like this get resolved.

There will be more of these incidents in the future, and that's good. Because it means that the user community is participating in the game and sharing for the enjoyment and betterment of all. This can drive interest, which can drive sales, which means the publisher is incentivized to continue to support the game.

Everyone wins (usually!).

[Lord High Munchkin]

Lock this thread?

[Tay]

No.

Please could everyone knock it on the head. The isuue regarding release has been resolved between myself and Matt and it is was done in a professional and polite way.

I will post further updates here on the App, because its only V1 and it will grow and change.