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

[OB1]

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.

Or enter into a separate agreement with Hasbro regarding 3.5 SRD content.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

To be clear, Foundry VTT does not scrape DDB for anything.

There is a module, not made or written by Foundry VTT but by a patreon (Mr. Primate) and another, much more limited patreon ( VTTA, which is free), that allows someone who has a DDB account to access their own material on DDB that they own and paid for (and only the DDB material they paid for) to have that imported into their game.

WotC is not harmed by this in any manner. Indeed, I happen to know for a fact that WotC has been enriched by this, FAR more than the author of Foundry VTT ever has.

I do not dispute that WotC is probably aiming at Foundry so that they can persuade people to use their own forthcoming VTT via DDB.

In so doing, they will cause more harm to their own bottom line than they will do to improve it. In just the past nine months alone, I know that WotC has received more than $400 from me for products/services purchased on DDB. The ONLY reason I paid that was for use in Foundry VTT. The marginal cost of that to WotC was approximate one or two cents. It was essentially all pure profit to WotC-- all of it.

If this transpires as we believe it likely will, these will not be rational business decisions.

I disagree (except for the part that this is not Foundry that did it directly). Foundry massively benefits from 5e being available on their platform and the use is clearly not authorized by D&D Beyond. Owning the content on D&D Beyond is a benefit in and of iteself and WoTC does not get extra revenue like they do via their two licensed partners (roll20 and Fantasy Grounds).

 

[kjdavies]

It's certainly underhanded...I'm not sure if it's clever. Why didn't they include SRD 3 or SRD 3.5 while they were at it? Paizo doesn't use SRD 5, so they don't get auto-opted into the agreement? Or Wizards thinks they can follow a chain of derivative work back from 5 to 3.5 to 3? The specification of SRD 5.1 is weird to me.

It makes sense to me, assuming I read it correctly. "SRD 5.1" is a specific body of content, and this license applies to that content. They even say that v1.1 doesn't apply to other SRDs (which I take to include SRD 3e and SRD 3.5 and SRD Modern). They are loose when referring to 'OGL' and 'SRD' much of the rest of the time, which could mean they intend for it to the versions mentioned here or be read as applying to all OGLs and all SRDs. It's ambiguous and scary.

 

[Prime_Evil]

One impetus for the OGL ( which wasn't originally intended to be a big O open license ) was that there are categories of support products perceived as needed for a game's health that are not profitable at the TSR/WotC/Hasbro scale. They could/would sell satisfactorily for publishers who operate on smaller scale/requirements and would allow WotC to focus on the items that move more units. Somewhere along the way, Ryan became infatuated with Open Licenses and it went from there.
The longwinded point to that was that the OGL provided a methodology that allowed for a more varied and healthier ecosystem of products that WotC was not entirely responsible for creating or curating and thus all boats rise.

This interpretation is not supported by statements published by WoTC at the time. The OGL was intended as a public licence created by WoTC to facilitate the sharing of Open Game Content. They published several statements to that effect and former officers of the company have confirmed this interpretation

 

[Dausuul]

The only thing that still puzzles me is why they do not just plain clear up the confusion? My guess now would be that they see the industry getting into panic - the bad press has already happened. This is their chance to use the desperation to negotiate some deep concessions from their competitors, and in return just give them what they originally intended to do, trough clarifying the NLAAV the way described. By showing that they are willing to "adjust" they get a PR win that likely at least partly offset what they already suffer. The main stream media picking up the controversy is great to raise awareness. Maybe WotC are really happy with how this has turned out, and the louder we scream, the better it is for them?

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.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but 1.0 clearly STATES how it is revocable: by a breach of terms. And it clearly states that as the only way.

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

 

[kjdavies]

The 3e and 3.5e SRD seem to be considered Unlicensed Content now (emphasis mine).

ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.​

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.

However, are they no longer open content? I do have a separate license with WotC (OGL v1.0a) for those ones, but not for use under OGL v1.1.

The obligations of OGL v1.0a and OGL v1.1 are not compatible, so it does make sense that I can't use open content from SRD or RSRD under OGL v1.1, and would need yet another license to do so... and I see no way to use third party open content under OGL v1.1 at all because even if they wanted, those third party publishers would need to get special permission to release that content under OGL v1.1.

 

[kjdavies]

Yeah, but the automatic opt-in is only triggered if you publish Licensed Content in SRD 5.1. Still, the way it's written, Paizo certainly published content that is present in SRD 5.1, even if they didn't use SRD 5.1 when they published it. Oy.

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

 

[kjdavies]

Maybe I'm suspicious but I'm getting a "we're making it intentionally opaque" feeling.

You might be suspicious, but I think you're not wrong.

 

[Steel_Wind]

However, Foundry VTT hosts the Pathfinder 2e system module in their GitHub organization, which does include the OGL 1.0a.

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 - the Dev team working on PF2 has more people working on it than Foundry does. Talented community development 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. If WotC cared, they would send a Cease and Desist. They have not.