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

[mamba]

Really? I missed that. I did see where they walked back most of the things they have claimed. They have been silent as to whether they are going to attempt to deauthorize the OGL, but, again, that's not an outright declaration.

It is very clear that they will still pretend they can de-authorize 1.0a when you read their statement. While they do not outright say so, the following sentence would not make sense otherwise

"Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."

As to walking back most things, they walked back nothing. Once they manage to get rid of 1.0a for good, they can just reinstate 1.1 as written originally, as they can change the new OGL to whatever they want, whenever they want. All they did is try fooling the gullible.

 

[robconley]

I appreciate everyone answering my questions. Pointing where I was wrong and where I understood the situation.

But be aware, despite all the legalities recent events as unleashed something deeper throughout the hobby.

I don't know what you mean by "administration of the licence".

Means the license is owned and handled by a non-profit. The GPL copyright is owned by the Free Software Foundation a non-profit organization that has no vested interest in any software company in the industry.

The key issue in the current furore is not who owns the copyright in the text of the OGL. It is who enjoys what contractual rights against whom. Nothing stops that same question arising in relation to Paizo in the future. Certainly not the fact that the text that sets out the terms of their licence agreements happens to be copyrighted by a non-profit organisation.

The plan is to have it work just like GNU Public License. I suggest reading up on it to see the role that the Free Software Foundation plays and how they assist those who use the license. If for example if the lawsuit is about the validity of the GPL then the FSF will often assist with legal aid. I wish there is a simple explanation that shows the nuances but there isn't. Do the research, you will see what I mean and understand the nuances of what the FSF does and doesn't do along with the other non-profits that have open content licenses.

As for the immediate issue of losing the OGL thus the right to use the content of the d20 and 5e SRD. ORC isn't a fix. Pathfinder and all the other related system will have to survive whatever legal challenge Wizards throws at them. This is a long term fix to the problems and vulnerabilities that were discovered. This is being done for the entire industry and hobby, not just Paizo.

I know in a world of conflict and greed this is hard to believe. That there has to be some catch. There isn't. The whole reason you can see what I am typing, and respond with your points and criticism is a result of belief in open content freely shared, usable by all without any restriction. Some require you must share what you do with the content under the same terms. Some don't.

Paizo
In regards to Pazio motivations the assertion being made is

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.

Wizards of the Coast took the initiative in creating the OGL and releasing the D20 SRD as open content under the OGL. One important reason that Wizards took the lead was Ryan Dancey sold them on the idea that it would led to D&D 3.0 dominating the hobby and industry for a variety of good reasons. There was nobody else involved at first. The fact that the OGL 1.0a was also in part a result of passionate belief in open gaming that start with WoTC experience with Primal Order was either hidden or deemphasized by those in involve. But Dancey admitted that was part of why it was proposed in the first place.

In contrast, ORC while led by Paizo is not about creating the dominance of Pathfinder. If you look at the list of participants you will notice that many of them offer their own systems. Granted most are D&D related but not NOT Pathfinder 1e or 2e related. Alongside the D&D crowd there are those who have their own systems.

I have no doubt that Paizo factors in the goodwill by their willingness to release open content and expects increased sales as a result. However in the case of ORC instead of the halfway adoption of how the open source world handled things, they are following more closely their footsteps.

Finally note that Paizo continually releases as open content the text of their major sourcebooks. Far beyond what other company do with the OGL that operate at their tier. You can see all the sources they opened by clicking on the sources menu on the left.

Pathfinder 2e

Starfinder

I am sure that Paizo would love to be the market leader. But altruism and passionate belief in open gaming are among their primary motivation. More than the OGL initial release, ORC is a good thing being done for good reasons. And if the entire team of folks (not just Paizo) pull it off they earned every kudos they get.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Really? I missed that. I did see where they walked back most of the things they have claimed. They have been silent as to whether they are going to attempt to deauthorize the OGL, but, again, that's not an outright declaration.

They outright declared that they are plowing ahead with a new licensing agreement. That is factually true so my comment is literally true as well. I did not make the claim that you are reading into my statement.

However, your inference of my deeper meaning was reasonable for the very same reason it is prudent to infer that WotC is continuing to pursue the objective you think I was referring to- the dissolution of OGL 1.0(a):
the greater context in which our statements were made strongly suggests that is what was meant.

 

[pemerton]

the license is owned and handled by a non-profit. The GPL copyright is owned by the Free Software Foundation a non-profit organization that has no vested interest in any software company in the industry.

The plan is to have it work just like GNU Public License.

I don't understand what significant difference to the licensing regime is supposed to flow from this sort of change in the copyright of the open RPG licence.

ORC while led by Paizo is not about creating the dominance of Pathfinder. If you look at the list of participants you will notice that many of them offer their own systems. Granted most are D&D related but not NOT Pathfinder 1e or 2e related. Alongside the D&D crowd there are those who have their own systems.

All those publishers have for the past couple of decades had the capacity to licence their systems under the OGL, or some other open licence (like Chaosium). I'm not seeing the significant difference that flows from them being licensed under ORC instead.

 

[ThorinTeague]

Without an installed user base on the order of D&D's, that's a non-starter.

Nice insight.... Got any other nuggets of joy for us? Can I go ahead and get next week's lotto numbers since you can see into the future so clearly?

 

[demoss]

I'm not ignoring that. I just don't see how it's any different, in structural terms, from Mongoose, Evil Hat, Chaosium etc all of whom have RPG systems released under various sorts of open licences.

From SW side we have learned that licenses form communities and ecosystems.

There are several reasons for this, from simple tribalism to making the legal issues at least seem easier to navigate for people without expert legal advice available.

Paizo is forming a new community and leaving Wizards out in the cold

EDIT: They might succeed or they might not, but the intent is pretty clear.

 

[glass]

I don't understand what significant difference to the licensing regime is supposed to flow from this sort of change in the copyright of the open RPG licence.

The difference AIUI is that any new versions of the licence will come from the non-profit, not from Paizo or any other for-profit corporation. Therefore, greed and market control will never be the motivation for a new version of the licence the way they are for !OGL 1.1 or 2.0.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not ignoring that. I just don't see how it's any different, in structural terms, from Mongoose, Evil Hat, Chaosium etc all of whom have RPG systems released under various sorts of open licences.

I don't know what you mean by this.

They will not own the copyright in it - but none of the current debates about the OGL turn on WotC's copyright in respect of it.

Paizo will absolutely control the terms on which it enters into licence agreements, though. That's the essence of a contract! And it can purport to "de-authorise" those contracts exactly the same as WotC is - by sending a letter or issuing a press release saying that as of such-and-such a date all existing licence agreements are no longer in force.

This seems to assume that all or most of the people who use the ORC will be basing their work on Paizo's SRD. Why would that be the case?

 

[Umbran]

Nice insight.... Got any other nuggets of joy for us? Can I go ahead and get next week's lotto numbers since you can see into the future so clearly?

Mod Note:
Frequently being snide and belittling the input of others makes a person feel good. But ultimately it isn't constructive, or good for the discussion. So, next time, please resist the urge.

 

[ThorinTeague]

Mod Note:
Frequently being snide and belittling the input of others makes a person feel good. But ultimately it isn't constructive, or good for the discussion. So, next time, please resist the urge.

You're right.

I default to sarcasm as a coping mechanism or humorous effect. I apologize to reynard.