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

[Justice and Rule]

That's like saying nothing has changed after I pull a gun on you while we are chatting in a bar

It's more like you've given me a note saying that you have my family hostage, really, but I think we both agree it's really bad form for an old friend to do when you haven't seen them after a while.

 

[Jerik]

Proving that a modified Pathfinder 2e does not infringe on Wizards' copyrights might also require a legal battle against Hasbro. The lawyers' point is that the irrevocability of 1.0a is a stronger case with fewer uncertainties. Moreover, it's not at all clear that Wizards is finished retreating. All that said, I wish Paizo and the others had kept their powder dry and forced Wizards to pony up a final, completed license for them to evaluate, before very publicly firing up the ORC van.

I don't. The sooner the ORC gets started, the sooner it gets finished and it's useable. (And there's little point in not doing it publicly; the more public it is, the easier it is to get other producers to sign on.)

And why wait? After that initial leak, even if Wizards of the Coast had made an announcement saying they were taking it all back and there wasn't going to be a new OGL and the OGL 1.0(a) was still fully authorized and they were really, really sorry... I'm pretty sure Paizo and other companies would have wanted a new license anyway, because even if Wizards of the Coast relented this time, they'd made it clear the OGL was in unsafe hands. There was no reason to wait for the final license before starting on the ORC, because they'd want something like the ORC to exist regardless of the terms in that final license.

(And really, Paizo has been moving away from using Wizards' Open Game Content for some time. They've already renamed and/or redesigned a lot of monsters from the D&D SRD—in Pathfinder, troglodytes are now xulgaths; sahuagins are sea devils; etc.—and while there are still some distinctive D&D monsters left in Pathfinder (xorns, otyughs, etc.), that just means the process of divorcing Pathfinder from D&D wasn't complete yet; they were already moving in that direction. Maybe they wouldn't have bothered spearheading the creation of a new license if WotC hadn't announced they were trying to torpedo the OGL, but this isn't something they were completely unprepared for.)

 

[mamba]

It's more like you've given me a note saying that you have my family hostage, really, but I think we both agree it's really bad form for an old friend to do when you haven't seen them after a while.

I think yours is even worse, in mine there is only potential for a bad outcome, in yours I already broke the law

I do agree that both are bad form, and so is what WotC pulled.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think yours is even worse, in mine there is only potential for a bad outcome, in yours I already broke the law

I do agree that both are bad form, and so is what WotC pulled.

Eh, pulling out a gun in a bar is generally considered brandishing, but the point is taken.

 

[Jerik]

Yes, I think there may have been a 5.0, there was also a 3.5 and a 3.0, none of which are invalidated by later releases. If you want to go dig up the 3.0 SRD, the OGL at this moment in time still allows you to use that rather than 5.1

There was indeed an SRD 5.0. It's still available in several places around the web, and you can even see where it was originally available on the Wizards of the Coast site via the Wayback Machine. (If you click on the link to download the Systems Reference Document on that archived page, you'll get a copy of the SRD 5.0.)

 

[HomegrownHydra]

I doubt they'd sue Paizo for that. Paizo is one of the few that can afford to fight. Better to pick on a "weakling" who can't defend himself properly and try to force concessions or win that way.

What do you mean by "force concessions or win that way"? Do you mean WotC would pursue a victory that would only be applicable to the weakling company and have no relevance to any other company?

 

[pemerton]

It's more like you've given me a note saying that you have my family hostage, really, but I think we both agree it's really bad form for an old friend to do when you haven't seen them after a while.

In my view this is an inapt analogy. Nothing legally has changed. If there is no safe harbour now, then there never was. If the OGL is an illusion now, then it always was. If the family members are hostages now, then they always were.

I mean, I was reading the posts and threads and announcements back when Ryan Dancey started the OGL, and at that time the point of it was supposed to be that it replaced reliance on WotC being nice with a legal entitlement to publish licensed OGC. But now the general response seems to be that, in fact, it was nothing more than an expression of intent by WotC to be nice, which evaporates as soon as some other intent is manifested. In that respect, Dancey's aims seem not to have been realised.

The whole point of ORC is that it is a greater future defense for them.

ORC isn't any sort of defence for Paizo that I can see. I mean, defence against what?

To me it seems to be a commercial device that serves the same commercial purpose for them as the OGL did for WotC when it was released, namely, creating an ecology of 3PPs who contribute to support for Paizo's game(s) and become part of a common (but Paizo-dominated) ecosystem.

I'm pretty sure Paizo and other companies would have wanted a new license anyway, because even if Wizards of the Coast relented this time, they'd made it clear the OGL was in unsafe hands.

I don't know what "unsafe hands" means here. The point of the OGL is not to give WotC unilateral control over use and dissemination of OGC. Rather, it's whole point is that it takes OGC out of their control. The only thing that is in WotC's hands is the copyright of the OGL itself, but they have granted express or implicit permission to all their licensees to reproduce it in accordance with the licence terms.

Yeah, for sure, a new license makes perfect sense for these publishers, but there's no legal jeopardy for them in any case as far as I can see.

Agreed, with one caveat: it frees those publishers from having to reproduce copies of a licence whose text is copyrighted WotC.

For those publishers, it would seem to make sense - as soon as ORC is done - for them all to issue quite formal declarations that all the OGC they have licensed under the OGL is now hereby available for licence under ORC. In effect, they all mutually vary the terms of their contracts without having to actually go to the expense of re-releasing everything.

 

[pemerton]

What do you mean by "force concessions or win that way"? Do you mean WotC would pursue a victory that would only be applicable to the weakling company and have no relevance to any other company?

Generally speaking, the outcome of a private legal dispute is binding only on the parties to the dispute. (There are complexities, but I'm speaking in the most general terms.)

If an adjudication in respect of WotC vs X generated legal reasoning that is binding, or even persuasive, in future matters - which depends on a range of factors including forum, jurisdiction, relevant facts, etc - then it could be a good indicator as to the rights and fate of other parties.

 

[Nikosandros]

In my view this is an inapt analogy. Nothing legally has changed. If there is no safe harbour now, then there never was. If the OGL is an illusion now, then it always was. If the family members are hostages now, then they always were.

I mean, I was reading the posts and threads and announcements back when Ryan Dancey started the OGL, and at that time the point of it was supposed to be that it replaced reliance on WotC being nice with a legal entitlement to publish licensed OGC. But now the general response seems to be that, in fact, it was nothing more than an expression of intent by WotC to be nice, which evaporates as soon as some other intent is manifested. In that respect, Dancey's aims seem not to have been realised.

For two decades (almost) everyone thought that it could not be rescinded and that WotC would not go back on its promise. Turns out that the second one was wrong and that the harbor might not be as safe as it was thought; probably not because WotC can really win a case but because almost everyone is afraid to find out.

ORC isn't any sort of defence for Paizo that I can see. I mean, defence against what?

It's a defense against the idea that the license itself can be changed due to strong-arm legal tactics. Paizo will relinquish control of the license to a law firm for care-taking until a foundation can take charge of it. The idea is that even if Paizo should be taken over by space Nazis, they won't be able to do anything to change the license.

To me it seems to be a commercial device that serves the same commercial purpose for them as the OGL did for WotC when it was released, namely, creating an ecology of 3PPs who contribute to support for Paizo's game(s) and become part of a common (but Paizo-dominated) ecosystem.

Many different publishers plant to release different systems under ORC. There will not be a Paizo-dominated ecosystem.

I don't know what "unsafe hands" means here. The point of the OGL is not to give WotC unilateral control over use and dissemination of OGC. Rather, it's whole point is that it takes OGC out of their control. The only thing that is in WotC's hands is the copyright of the OGL itself, but they have granted express or implicit permission to all their licensees to reproduce it in accordance with the licence terms.

That was the thought. But, if WotC can attempt to rescind it, it seems that it is not really out of their control.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Generally speaking, the outcome of a private legal dispute is binding only on the parties to the dispute. (There are complexities, but I'm speaking in the most general terms.)

If an adjudication in respect of WotC vs X generated legal reasoning that is binding, or even persuasive, in future matters - which depends on a range of factors including forum, jurisdiction, relevant facts, etc - then it could be a good indicator as to the rights and fate of other parties.

Sure, but I'm an specifically trying to understand what Max thinks WotC's objective would be in suing a "weakling".