Paizo Announces New Irrevocable Open RPG License To Replace the OGL

​

Paizo, the maker of Pathfinder, has just announced a new open license for use with RPGs. The license will not be owned by Paizo - or by any TTRPG company, and will be stewarded by Azora Law, a company which represents several tabletop gaming companies, until it finds its home with an independent non-profit. This new license is designed to be irrevocable.

We believe, as we always have, that open gaming makes games better, improves profitability for all involved, and enriches the community of gamers who participate in this amazing hobby. And so we invite gamers from around the world to join us as we begin the next great chapter of open gaming with the release of a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC).

The new Open RPG Creative License will be built system agnostic for independent game publishers under the legal guidance of Azora Law, an intellectual property law firm that represents Paizo and several other game publishers. Paizo will pay for this legal work. We invite game publishers worldwide to join us in support of this system-agnostic license that allows all games to provide their own unique open rules reference documents that open up their individual game systems to the world. To join the effort and provide feedback on the drafts of this license, please sign up by using this form.

In addition to Paizo, Kobold Press, Chaosium, Green Ronin, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, and a growing list of publishers have already agreed to participate in the Open RPG Creative License, and in the coming days we hope and expect to add substantially to this group.

The ORC will not be owned by Paizo, nor will it be owned by any company who makes money publishing RPGs. Azora Law’s ownership of the process and stewardship should provide a safe harbor against any company being bought, sold, or changing management in the future and attempting to rescind rights or nullify sections of the license. Ultimately, we plan to find a nonprofit with a history of open source values to own this license (such as the Linux Foundation).

Read more on Paizo's blog.

 

[blakesha]

Doesn't stop each company signing into the license from revoking their individual SRDs, or from releasing content not tied to the SRDs, or from suddenly going "version X of our product will no longer be licensed under ORC". It just gives 3pp a license to release content under that is irrevocable. Hell, WotC could release OneD&D under the ORC and not change the overall situation at all.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I suspect WoTC could redeem themselves in the eyes of the community by signing up to this new independent licence. Especially if they agree to re-licence existing Open Game Content under an irrevocable licence held by an independent foundation. This would cover material in the v3.5 and 5.1 SRDs. Bonus points if they provide an update to the OGL v1.0a authorising the use of the new license as an update to the original licence. They could then release OneDnD under any licence they wish without causing an uproar. Personally, I would advise them the terms they are proposing will damage their market share. But the choice is theirs alone.

NOTE: I should add that I don't consider this outcome likely, but I think it's important to give them an off-ramp to heal the breach in community trust.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

We will not go gently into that good night. Hell no! If we're going out, we're going out with all guns blazing.

Cue AC/DC: If You Want Blood...You've Got It!

Huh, sounds like Paizo's about to ROCK. Well, to you Paizo

And as they say, one good AC/DC song deserves another

 

[Alzrius]

Bonus points if they provide an update to the OGL v1.0a authorising the use of the new license as an update to the original licence.

Well, since we're dreaming, I'd like to get a pony for Christmas too.

 

[Tazawa]

Wait, Open Game Content that's published under the OGL v1.0a is owned by WotC?

That...doesn't sound right.

EDIT: Or did you mean the term "Open Game Content" itself, which might be copyright WotC?

It’s not quite right. WotC has copyright on the content of the portion of their SRDs that is copyrightable. They also have copyright on derivative works that other creators of open game content have made. Those creators also have copyright on the original portions of the derivative works and any wholly new work that is copyrightable.

There is a considerable amount of open game content released under the OGL that is not derivative of WotC’s SRDs and does not fall under their copyright.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wait, Open Game Content that's published under the OGL v1.0a is owned by WotC?

That...doesn't sound right.

EDIT: Or did you mean the term "Open Game Content" itself, which might be copyright WotC?

Not content that’s published under the OGL (e.g. like Humblewood or whatever). Content that’s licensed under the OGL (i.e. the material in the SRDs). That’s, theoretically, WotC’s intellectual property, which is why you even need a license to make content that uses it. Technically a lot of it probably isn’t actually copyrightable, but the whole point of the OGL is (or at least was) to spare everyone the trouble of having to sort out what is and isn’t copyrighted.

 

[rgard]

I'm not a lawyer, but there's no way to automatically allow all Open Game Content released under the OGL to be used under a non-OGL license.

The original copyright holders (WotC for the SRD/MSRD/RSRD/SRD5 and 3.5 Unearthed Arcana, Clark Peterson for the original Creature Collection, Sword & Sorcery Studios [whomever that wound up with after White Wolf was bought] for most of the Scarred Lands stuff, Mongoose Publishing for all their releases, and so on) licensed their stuff under the OGL, not "any nice license that comes along later", and would have to authorize any use of their content under a different license.

Exception: If the ORC were declared an authorized version of the OGL by WotC, then Section 9 of the OGL 1.0/1.0a would allow moving all Open Game Content released under the OGL to it. But that's not a trick anyone other than WotC can do.

Agreed, but it's not like WotC vigorously protected that IP over the past 20+ years.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Well, since we're dreaming, I'd like to get a pony for Christmas too.

I don't consider this outcome likely, but I feel the community should state it's position clearly. This gives WoTC a way to back down without losing too much face. It also draws a line under the OGL and makes it clear that everything beyond the 5.1 SRD is out of bounds.

 

[masdog]

Not content that’s published under the OGL (e.g. like Humblewood or whatever). Content that’s licensed under the OGL (i.e. the material in the SRDs).

That’s still not very precise. There is a lot of content that is licensed under the OGL that does not originate with, or was derived from, WotC or their SRDs.

WotC does not have a copyright on any of that material.

 

[Rabulias]

Agreed, but it's not like WotC vigorously protected that IP over the past 20+ years.

Yes they have. People used the OGL license, which allowed 3rd parties to use WotC's copyrighted content while WotC retained copyright on the SRD content. Also, you don't have to vigorously defend copyright for it to still be valid; you may be thinking about trademarks.