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

[Enrahim2]

I find it extremely hard to believe that Wizards is playing that kind of 11-dimensional chess. And if they are, they're morons. A publicity firestorm like this one makes impressions which are not so easily erased. The 3PP community is not going to come rushing back to gratefully kiss the ring.

Oh, I agree. I don't think they intended this to happen. My current guess is that they had a lawyer writing the legalese without a full understanding of the context, or the social implications. But now that the naughty word really has hit the fan, and a PR disaster is unavoidable anyway, the question is more - how to make the best out of this unexpected situation after all?

If they really had been fully aware of the level of inflammatory response to this would be, I think they would have had a better damage control strategy prepared. And you would have to be beyond moronic to not understand that a direct threat to the entire 1.0a ecosystem would really blow up. I think it seem slightly less moronic for a lawyer to not realize that "authorized" might have potential wider legal and social meaning than referring to a keyword of another legal document.

 

[mamba]

I think I'm right that the way this works, they claim that the 3.5 SRD is no longer OGC, and it is not offered under OGL 1.1 - only the 5e SRD is. Therefore they're not actually offering Paizo what Paizo needs to function? So Paizo HAS to either assert their rights under OGL 1.0, or go out of business/stop publishing Pathfinder.

no idea, some read it as new products, so Paizo could keep selling what they already have an rid themselves of what still ties them to the SRD - which they said is not much asap

 

[kenada]

FoundryVTt is an explicit licensee in that it sells Paizo Adv Paths to customers. (technically, Paizo sells the codes which can be redeemed on Foundry's server.) The PF2 system is community authored. It is also better code than 5e's - theDev team working on PF2 has more people working on it than Foundry does. Talented.community dev is hard AF to assemble, but hard to beat when it is. The PF2 devs are to be commended.

I do not see any merit at all to the argument that Foundry is playing dirty pool with DDB. "Oh but you should have to buy it twice! "

Give it a rest. Are you a shareholder in Fantasy Grounds? If WotC cared, they would send a Cease and Desist. They have not.

I wasn’t clear, but I wasn’t commenting on the scraping allegation. I was just noting that Foundry VTT is providing PF2 stuff. Otherwise, I think you’re confusing me with someone else.

 

[mamba]

Where does OGL v 1.0/1.0a clearly state that section 13 is the only way it can be revoked?

by not listing any other way

 

[robconley]

Where does OGL v 1.0/1.0a clearly state that section 13 is the only way it can be revoked?

Then just like I asked about irrevocable, if a license has a termination clause like the one in the OGL, what are the key common law cases that decided that a licensor can terminate a license arbitrarily by means other than the termination clause.

 

[Enrahim2]

Easy to see the SRDs released for 3e and 3.5 are 'Unlicensed Content' as far as OGL v1.1 is concerned. They are not SRD 5.1, therefore are not licensed by this license.

There are actually a quite nice reading of this. Section II only require you to follow the terms of this license if publishing anything with "Licensed Content". In other words, it appear as long as you are not cross publishing with 5.1 SRD content, it is nothing in this OGL that prevents you from publishing anything containing SRD3.5 content. It just doesn't provide any rights to do so either. Which mean that if we ignore the "authorized" farce, there are nothing preventing you to use SRD3.5 material under 1.0a (and indeed nothing that prevents you from publishing 5.1SRD content under 1.0a either as long as you abide with all the 1.1 provisions, including not mixing with "Unlicensed Content" as far as I can see)
IANAL

 

[Steel_Wind]

Did Paizo use content from SRD 5.1, or just content that has the same text but is from SRD 5e?

For Abomination Vaults (5e version) and Kingmaker (5e) I am quite confident they used SRD 5.1.

WotC likely does not want its customers buying Paizo authored adv products. Their production values are higher than WotC's (at a minimum, at least as high - it is what Paizo does best). WotC would rather their casual customers know as little about Paizo products as possible, I am sure.

It is the one thing that Paizo is most upset about with this recent announcement. It seems aimed by WotC at preventing their customers from becoming familiar with Paizo products. While it may be that on a site such as this one, that knowledge is commonly shared -- among more casual and younger customers of WotC products -- Paizo's expertise & adv production values are not known at all.

 

[pemerton]

That would be a relief for those who have published non-D&D games under the OGL. They have no reason to pick up the new license, and so no issues.

I think your second sentence may not be write. What if that person (X) is currently in a 1.0/1.0a licence agreement with Y, and Y becomes a party to v 1.1? Y appears now to have inconsistent contractual obligations - they have promised WotC to renounce 1.0/1.0a, but have promised X to honour it.

There may be ways of reconciling these obligations - eg perhaps the renunciation pursuant to v 1.1 is relative only to WotC's Licensed Content. But I think it is not entirely straightforward.

 

[pemerton]

To be clear, there is none of @bmcdaniel's "the licensee agrees" language in the document.

I read your edit. I just wanted to add: the term you quoted is a term of a licence, and the licence says "by making commercial use of
Licensed Content, You agree to the terms of this agreement". At least on the fact of its text, the licence does not purport to bind non-parties. Which makes sense to me!

 

[Prime_Evil]

I think your second sentence may not be write. What if that person (X) is currently in a 1.0/1.0a licence agreement with Y, and Y becomes a party to v 1.1? Y appears now to have inconsistent contractual obligations - they have promised WotC to renounce 1.0/1.0a, but have promised X to honour it.

There may be ways of reconciling these obligations - eg perhaps the renunciation pursuant to v 1.1 is relative only to WotC's Licensed Content. But I think it is not entirely straightforward.

I think it would be wise to reach out to WoTC for clarification of this point. Or maybe they do see this as an opportunity to kill all competing game systems within the hobby?