What are the Realistic Limitations of the OGL?

[amnuxoll]

So, according to the OGL, I can freely copy and distribute material that is under that license. So, what happens if, for example, I take the Pathfinder ruleset (or any other OGL game) , copy all of the text into a document and resell that document as the "Wayfinder" rule system? (Important Note: I have a deep respect for Paizo in general and Jason Bulmahn in particular and would never ever actually do this.)

What avenues does Paizo have to prevent this? It seems like they are likely to have some sort of reasonable recourse.

 

[Marius Delphus]

IIUC, there is no "recourse" available, unless the new product copies Paizo material which is not OGC. However, a new product such as the one contemplated must overcome, at the very least, the following hurdles that occur to me off the top of my head:

(1) Production value. Paizo's books look darn good.
(2) Price. At $10 apiece for the PDFs (Core Rulebook and Bestiary so far, and hopefully GameMastery Guide as well when released), a new product would have to be produced at a very low cost to realistically compete. See item (1).
(3) Word of mouth. Assume it would be almost instantly public that the new product is a copy-paste of Paizo's OGC. This would have a chilling effect on sales. See item (2).
(4) Paizo's generosity. The Pathfinder SRD is online and free. See item (2).
(5) Boring. Losing Paizo's Product Identity -- the artwork and "fluff" -- means the new product either has to replace it or do without it. See items (1) and (2).

 

[pawsplay]

There is no "recourse" when people use what you have given away freely. Anything labeled OGC makes you a potential licensee.

 

[amnuxoll]

(3) Word of mouth. Assume it would be almost instantly public that the new product is a copy-paste of Paizo's OGC. This would have a chilling effect on sales. See item (2).

I suppose this is at the heart of it. Paizo has to count on the strong customer loyalty that they have to prevent this.

It just seemed like there might be legal angles other than copyright that could be applied.

 

[pawsplay]

I think their biggest concern was that making the rules closed content would alienate their fans and third party publishers. If they were concerned about cut-paste jobs, they would simply have made the entire game closed. Do you understand the issue?

 

[Gilwen]

They would not be able to make any rules closed that they derived from OGC from third parties. I haven't seen the product so I can't comment on what parts are derived but from their marketing material I have read it seems that most of it is derived from the original WOTC SRD for 3/3.5.

What you couldn't do as others have mentioned is reuse their PI or indicated compatibility. Depending on what exactly is open there might be room for pocket guides in the vein of what mongoose and others did with the original SRD.Ryan Dancey practically dared publishers to do exactly this when 3.0 was first released in the OGL FAQ and so they did quite successfully, catching WOTC off guard. I am sure Paizo considered this when they developed their business plan and how it would potentially affect them. I found the pocket SRD books thta came out a cheap alternative to purchasing more than one PHB. I certainly bought my "good" set then used the pocket stuff to travel with or to loan out.

How well will something like this be recieved? That really depends on the consumers and how popular the game becomes as it moves forward. There will certainly be backlash from loyal paizo customers.

Their recourse? If the OGL is followed properly then nothing. By releasing under the OGL they ahve given anyone a license to take, modify, or anything else they want to do with their game. If the OGL isn't followed properly then suing the person/company for enforcement of the OGL is their only recourse.


Gil

 

[pawsplay]

They would not be able to make any rules closed that they derived from OGC from third parties.

Not true. They can't close anything that's already open, but they can make the slightest changes and call it closed content, if they choose. Anything that is copyrightable can be open or closed.

 

[Gilwen]

Once you derive from open content via the OGL you cannot close it or change the terms for it. If you don't use the OGL but follow normal copyright law then there is no open or closed content since OGC and PI are constructs of the OGL and not copyright law. if you use the OGL and derive from someone's open content then you are agreeing to make your derived stuff open in exchange for using their OGC and you are agreeing not to use their declared PI regardless of what copyright law allows for. This is covered in sections 2 and 7. Modification is covered section 1 and it makes no allowance for degree of modification.


What you can do for example is if you find a feat or spell, you can take the mechanics but give the spell or feat unique fluff and name. That fluff or name could be declared PI. But you can't take the mechanics and change a portion of it and then declare the mechanics PI since the license doesn't allow you to modify the terms of the OGC (section 2 2nd to last sentence).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean. Could you provide an example?

Gil

 

[pawsplay]

You are just completely wrong. You could change magic missile to say it does fire damage and declare that PI, and no one would be able to copy that exact sentence from the modified spell.

 

[Gilwen]

Your example is a far cry from your statements of " If they were concerned about cut-paste jobs, they would simply have made the entire game closed." and "They can't close anything that's already open, but they can make the slightest changes and call it closed content, if they choose."

those statments suggest by changing the smallest part the whole thing becomes closed. That is simply not the case and not allowed by the license. To close the game they could not use the OGL, SRD, or third party OGC as the basis of the game.

As for the example.
Fire damage is already covered as OGC in the SRD but if you were to create a new non-OGC derivitative damage type for the spell then you would be correct on that exact sentence and damage type; you could declare those items PI but nothing more. The rest of the spell is still open and avilable to any to use, minus of course your PI which hardly cripples the spell.



Gil