Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[pemerton]

I think I'm considerably less pessimistic than pemerton about this matter, both because I think it's highly unlikely Pathfinder would try that, and because I think with a better written, more explicitly irrevocable license there would be fewer people taking it seriously if they did, but I think I do see the point they're making.

I don't know if I'm pessimistic - I just think it's worthwhile people understanding where the actual pressure points are!

Though I guess in my professional capacity I am a little disappointed that law seems to be playing so little role in this dispute over licensing arrangements.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I know where you're coming from. I'm a big advocate for open-source software myself, but I'm not an open-source purist - I will also use other alternatives if they're more suitable. I use Adobe products because they're industry-standard and I can't force someone who requests I give them an Adobe InDesign file something else. I usually use Linux, PHP, MySQL, an Nginx/Apache combo for webservers. I use WordPress a lot. I have an IntelliJ IDEA subscription because it's a far better IDE for my purposes than any open-source one. I use Microsoft Word because it's the most comfortable option, but knowing that I can open those .DOCX files elsewhere if I ever stop using it. I make the occasional open source contribution myself, because personally I feel that is what we should do, some has been 100% my own original work that had no legal need to be open-sourced. Knowing that I am not vendor-locked is certainly a consideration (and a big one) for me when it's my choice of which software to use, but it's certainly not the sole consideration. Every decision I make is based on what the available options are and which will suit my purpose best.

While I've never to the best of my knowledge closed off anything I've written under the OGL that wasn't pure Product Identity (noting that many times that wasn't my call anyway because I was producing work under contract, but to the best of my knowledge all of that work was distributed under "all rules within are Open Game Content" terms), I cannot be mad at someone that does, because that's what the OGL terms are. It may well be a good argument for someone to prefer to work with a different license, of course, but the argument "oh, how horrible, you did something the license is designed to allow you to do" is not exactly a good one to me.

It's an agreement, and both sides enter into it with knowledge of what it says. What it says may not be ideal, but if any party has an issue, they need to make it known before agreeing to it, and not be upset later that the agreement says what it does. That's the crux of why we're here right now - because WotC wants to do something with the OGL that it was not agreed they have the power to do at the time the agreement was made. Moving forwards, we may of course wish to argue that any new licence arrangements between ourselves and other parties have better, more open terms, but that's not applicable to the OGL 1.0(a). That has its terms, they're as it says, and I cannot truly fault someone for actually following them properly, even if it makes me slightly annoyed that they used the OGL in a way that prevents me writing something compatible with their product, because that simply wasn't ever a part of the agreement. If I don't like that, that's on me to seek out different agreements to work under.

Right, neither of us are fanatics, I mean, you really should talk to Stallman if you want to be amused. I am rather OK with paying for software, those people are missing out on the open source world, but if they think that doing their own closed thing is working for them, that's fine. Adobe is dying anyway, they haven't been able to keep up and their code base is a completely wreck (I know people).

I just think the way the game community is doing things is equally as short-sighted as Adobe. In the end, open source is what is left when all the commercial interests have wrecked themselves. Also, I have used both Eclipse and Intellij IDEA extensively, Eclipse is actually better, overall. I mean, if IntelliJ was free, OK maybe. It sure ain't worth $100! After wrestling with it for a year, I opened Eclipse to do some task, and that was the end of that, never went back! Same with Firefox, still happily using it, got 100's of tabs open on my 10-year-old system, works fine.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Well, via the "Goodman Games Strategy" which was outlined before, I can effectively. Heck, I can simply use OGC and not put any of my own stuff under OGL at all. It is exactly like BSD 3-clause license in effect! I understand the sentiment, people wanted to preserve their precious setting material and not give it away! For WotC this is kind of a big deal, FR and DL and whatever have some significant measurable market value. Golarion? I'm sorry, it is worth 2 cents. I mean, OK, it might potentially gain some measurable value, maybe, sometime. Very doubtful! Point being, we don't really have anything to protect.

While I may disagree with you on the value of homegrown IP by 3PPs, the important thing not mentioned here is when the 3PP themselves does not own the IP, but is using it under license. If there wasn't expressly protection for that in some form, it's unlikely we'd see things like Cubicle 7's OGLed "Doctors and Daleks" book (although as I much prefer their Doctor Who RPG with the Vortex system to the 5e rules, personally I wouldn't have very much of a problem here )

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well I think this is clear in the OGL too. But clarity of contractual terms isn't all that matters!

Sure, but I think there's a difference between a license written by and enforced between a few geeks in an obscure neck of the woods, and the Creative Commons licenses which are very pervasively used in society at large. Also, go READ the CC license text at creativecommons.org and you will see, it is VASTLY more clear on all the points where OGL admits of some grey. I tend to agree with you that OGL could be enforced. I don't think very many sane lawyers will even go near trying to fight the CC-BY-SA license. They won't be litigating against Paizo, some tiny company, they will be litigating against a license that has been battle tested and who's effectiveness a lot of people with deep pockets and a willingness to fight will back up! I mean, Hasbro is big, they might overmatch the whole open content community, perhaps, but they risk invoking the attention of something like Google, which Hasbro doesn't want to mess with... Its a MUCH different kind of situation.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Right, neither of us are fanatics, I mean, you really should talk to Stallman if you want to be amused. I am rather OK with paying for software, those people are missing out on the open source world, but if they think that doing their own closed thing is working for them, that's fine. Adobe is dying anyway, they haven't been able to keep up and their code base is a completely wreck (I know people).

I just think the way the game community is doing things is equally as short-sighted as Adobe. In the end, open source is what is left when all the commercial interests have wrecked themselves. Also, I have used both Eclipse and Intellij IDEA extensively, Eclipse is actually better, overall. I mean, if IntelliJ was free, OK maybe. It sure ain't worth $100! After wrestling with it for a year, I opened Eclipse to do some task, and that was the end of that, never went back! Same with Firefox, still happily using it, got 100's of tabs open on my 10-year-old system, works fine.

On a personal level, I agree totally with how you feel here (except the Intellij bit, I still prefer IDEA to both Eclipse and NetBeans, but that is a subjective preference of mine and not an objective one ) I would like nothing more than all of us building off each other's work, creating a greater whole for everyone to enjoy. The idea of "brand protection" is something I understand, and work within, but which I would probably not include were I to create a brand new world for us to all live in tomorrow.

Meanwhile, the realist in me feels there's too much opposition to get the ideal world today and to work with what we can get, and the logician in me just wants to know what the rules are and to stick to them so we all know where we stand.

On occasion, however, my rebellious side wins out and wants nothing more than to throw everything that's causing a problem on a big fire and start over...

 

[Steel_Wind]

But it’s harder to do when they release things under a license they don’t unilaterally control.

Or, indeed, control it at all. It's to be held by a non-profit - acting under direction of the non-profit's board of directors, and administered by a law firm.

It's being set up that way so that what somebody suggests Paizo could "just do" is exactly what they will not be able to "just do".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

On a personal level, I agree totally with how you feel here (except the Intellij bit, I still prefer IDEA to both Eclipse and NetBeans, but that is a subjective preference of mine and not an objective one )

Ah, you philistine you!

I would like nothing more than all of us building off each other's work, creating a greater whole for everyone to enjoy. The idea of "brand protection" is something I understand, and work within, but which I would probably not include were I to create a brand new world for us to all live in tomorrow.

Yeah, I hear you for sure.

Meanwhile, the realist in me feels there's too much opposition to get the ideal world today and to work with what we can get, and the logician in me just wants to know what the rules are and to stick to them so we all know where we stand.

On occasion, however, my rebellious side wins out and wants nothing more than to throw everything that's causing a problem on a big fire and start over...

Aye. Well, you can work on my RPG! It certainly skirts the line as to "how much like D&D can you get" and I could always 'publish' it under CC-BY-SA and see what happens! haha.

 

[masdog]

Paizo can't unilaterally update the license, if it's owned by a third party, no, but they could make some argument about being able to withdraw Pathfinder from the license, and say the license no longer applies to them, and that nobody can use the Pathfinder SRD with the ORC going forward. Depending on the terms of the license, they may not actually have legal standing to do that, but according to pemerton and others, Wizards of the Coast probably doesn't actually have legal standing to stop future use of the OGL 1.0(a), and look what's going on anyway.

I think that's a fair point. It would depend on the text of any future ORC license, though. And Paizo, or any publisher, would potentially have the right to republish material under a more restrictive license.

I think a big part of the current issue is that WotC owns the current license, the core property that is licensed under it, and the only mechanism for updating the license. So if I had to guess, we're only in this situation because it suits their future business model and they think they can get away with it (or if they don't think this, they're trying to make people think they can).

It would be different if, say, the Free Gaming Foundation (a fictional organization that I just made up...but think of it like the Free Software Foundation for TTRPGs) had stewardship over the ORC. If Paizo or any other publisher tried to pull this stunt, there would be a licensing body to assert the rights of the licensees and any sublicensed products.

I'm a big advocate for open-source software myself, but I'm not an open-source purist

I'm very much in the same boat. I'm a big open-source advocate and user myself. I use a lot of Linux in my lab, Kubernetes, Postgres, and I dabble with a lot of open-source application packages. VS Code is my editor of choice.

I also have a lot of licensed software on my laptops and desktops. My big sticking point is subscription services. They need to offer some value to me over non-subscription offerings. I actively avoid Adobe software because the subscription does not seem to be worth it compared to the alternatives (DxO/Affinity/DaVinci Resolve/FoxIt). Office365 Enterprise is actually worth the subscription fees because you get so much for it.

 

[Catolias]

I think your latter question is a bit unfair on 'the community'. No, I think WoTC had this plan in mind all along.

On the former question, I believe there is no available 'OGL 2.0' document. WOTC's lawyers are probably working & reworking the draft even as I type! I believe they intend to release it tomorrow Monday 16th January, but that very well could be pushed back.

I’ve been thinking more and more that the OGL is integral to the OneD&D strategy / announcement by WoTC that the new D&D would not be a new edition. A new OGL that deauthorises any other edition of D&D achieves that outcome if 3PPs can no longer produce 1e to 5e game materials.

If that’s so, while I agree WoTC is unlikely to take legal action against some 3PP, it might choose to do so to enforce such a strategy. IMO this might reasonably include against smaller 3PPs like Kobold Press who are retro-cloning 5e or EN Publishing for its clear 5e derived Level Up! (because it purports to be A5E or advanced 5E).

(Maybe that’s been said before. If so, I apologise—I clearly missed the boat escaping the safe harbour…)

 

[Matt Thomason]

I actively avoid Adobe software because the subscription does not seem to be worth it compared to the alternatives (DxO/Affinity/DaVinci Resolve/FoxIt). Office365 Enterprise is actually worth the subscription fees because you get so much for it.

I was actually about to cancel my Adobe sub last year because I only really use InDesign, and really don't do any layout work for anyone anymore, so it wasn't really anything more than a monthly expense to write off against profit when I do my taxes. Being able to use Photoshop was nice, but not really worth the full subscription fee. Then when I went to cancel they gave me the option of a discount and I caved...