3 ms·

I know about Pathfinder, but I don't understand this: > It is my understanding, however, that Pathfinder Second Edition is pretty much a full rewrite and only

by the_af 4y ago

I know about Pathfinder, but I don't understand this: > It is my understanding, however, that Pathfinder Second Edition is pretty much a full rewrite and only includes the OGL as a way for third parties to build content around Pathfinder Second Edition. Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC? And cannot they simply switch to another license, if 2nd edition is truly a full rewrite? There's something I'm definitely missing here.

morelisp 4y ago
> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? Why do organizations other than the FSF use the GPL? Edit because fuck this site's rate limits. > the GPL doesn't put organizations that choose that license at the mercy of the FSF. IMO the OGL doesn't either - this is really a radical interpretation WotC is testing and Dancey's statements alone - at the time and today - are going to be enough to get the ridiculousness dismissed. (IANAL TINLA, but I do have some ancient - like 2003-era - OGL-published stuff floating around.) Conversely the idea that you might need to agree to a newer license to get ongoing access to new things - there's a close parallel with the FSF and the GFDL (where I disagreed) and the Tivo/patent clauses in GPL3 (where I agreed). But that has nothing to do with the license per se and everything to do with still wanting what the license holder-author is offering.
- the_af 4y ago
  Well, the GPL doesn't put organizations that choose that license at the mercy of the FSF. The FSF isn't a business competing with the organizations that choose the GPL. The FSF also cannot change the rules of the license a posteriori. The OGL doesn't look much like the GPL. Wizards of the Coast is a business in direct competition to others using the OGL. It's also crazy that something under the OGL falls in WotC's jurisdiction even if it uses no rules or settings from D&D -- I must have misunderstood this because this is simply too crazy to be true.
  - Macha 4y ago
    > The FSF also cannot change the rules of the license a posteriori. GNU can and has changed the rules of one of their licenses. Specifically the GFDL 1.3 was released to allow all the wikis licensed under GFDL 1.1+/GFDL1.2+ to migrate to CC-BY-SA. This is arguably a case of using the power for good, but fear of them using the power for bad is exactly why e.g. Linux is GPLv2-only rather than GPLv2-or-later
    - the_af 4y ago
      If I understand this correctly, your example isn't a case of retroactively modifying a license. If you publish something under an X+ license, aren't you effectively saying "the conditions of this or a later revision apply"? You are willingly choosing to use this version or a later one. So if a later one changes one of the provisions of the prior version, this isn't a retroactive change but something you explicitly wanted when you used version X+. Version X isn't changed at all, it's just that you explicitly said you accepted version X+1 whenever it became available. Is this the same situation with the OGL and Paizo? Is Pathfinder licensed under OGL version X+? Seems... unwise. Not like the GPL or whatever, because the GPL is not aimed at restricting your business success and is not designed by your direct business competitor!
      - Macha 4y ago
        > Is this the same situation with the OGL and Paizo? Is Pathfinder licensed under OGL version X+? Yes. There are two reasons for this, one is that the first edition of pathfinder had to be, because it used material from D&D 3.5, and then the second edition didn't want to break compatibility with the first edition's ecosystem, and the second is it would violate the copyright of the OGL itself to use a modified version without an "or later version" clause. The same would be true for the GPL, except the GPL expressly provides a mechanism to choose to use the or later clause or not.
        the_af 4y ago
        Ah, I get it! So Pathfinder 1st Ed was based in a version of D&D (3.5) which already used version OGL+! That's the piece of the puzzle I was missing: the minute Paizo decided to fork D&D, they became locked into this unfortunate licensing choice, at the mercy of future license updates. I also understand you cannot decide to use a "pinned" version if the original you're licensing is already using a "plus" version. In hindsight, it looks like a terrible decision for Pathfinder to have accepted those terms. Had I been then, I would have made an entirely new game "in the spirit" of 3.5 but starting from scratch. I guess they opted for the more appealing route of trying to more directly appeal to disgruntled fans or D&D, and now they are facing the downsides of that. It sucks, agreed. I guess this is a lesson about the risks of trying to ride another company's success instead of making your own thing. And yes, it happens with software as well. (I'm still not convinced this will affect companies/games using the OGL for things entirely unrelated to D&D. That'd be surreal!)
- lovich 4y ago
  If you navigate to the comment you want to reply to, it doesn’t appear to be rate limited. Only when viewing the full thread
  - morelisp 4y ago
    I’m referring to the actual rate limit because dang and I disagree about the average quality of my comments, not the idiosyncratic UI.
    - lovich 4y ago
      huh, I don't think I've ever actually triggered that and I've done some marathon posting sessions where I replied within <30 seconds. Is that a per user rate limiter?
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? The most reasonable opinion I have read on this is that Paizo themselves are not entirely convinced the second edition can be legally seen as an untainted full rewrite and use the OGL out of precaution. They should be able to relicense but Hasbro might sue them arguing that actually the licensing situation isn’t that clear.
Sebb767 4y ago
> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? Why would they when there's a well-known and (before recent events) fully trusted license already established within the community?
- the_af 4y ago
  That's probably why they used the OGL, agreed. But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? If you can do a major rules rewrite (and I understand Pathfinder is on the more complex/crunchy side of RPGs), surely you have the know-how to design your own license? Even if all the actors in this dramedy are profit-driven businesses, I can't wrap my head around the OGL not being driven by a consortium. How on earth does WotC have final say? In any case, they are probably regretting it now. I hope this sets a precedent.
  - Sebb767 4y ago
    > But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? Microsoft also publishes software under open-source licenses [0]. The license is short and well-understood, it's not like a large piece of software that might contain backdoors. Also, people trust(-ed) that license. > If you can do a major rules rewrite [...], surely you have the know-how to design your own license? Yes, but you'd just end up with a similarly worded license that people don't know. Why spend that money? Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I can easily see why they decided against that. Also, Paizo is probably sufficiently funded by now that suing them is a bit dangerous for WotC, as they risk a bad precedent. [0] Which are not necessarily competitors, but might also not be friendly towards MS.
    - the_af 4y ago
      > [0] Which are not necessarily competitors, but might also not be friendly towards MS. Until not that long ago, Microsoft considered open source licenses a "cancer". While they have changed their stance since then, I'm sure they did some major risk assessment and have safeguards in place of the kind a company like Paizo simply isn't capable of. More importantly, the core MS line of products isn't licensed with a license they don't control. "Not necessarily competitors" makes all the difference here! This is not a minor detail, but a major one. Look at how Wizards of the Coast is framing the issue, and I quote them [0]: > “the Open Game License was always intended to allow the community to help grow D&D and expand it creatively. It wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.” and > “OGL wasn’t intended to fund major competitors and it wasn’t intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming. We are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear.” [0] source: https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634 https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...
sleepybrett 4y ago
> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? Lawyers cost money. > And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? The theory is that they are not. > If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC? People point out that the PF2 works have OGL licenses. I'm sure we'll all find out in the coming weeks/months
Yuioup 4y ago
I thought that Pathfinder 2e was much like software development: The latest commit in a branch which has OGL 1.0 at its root. Does OGL 1.1 mean that /all/ branches are affected?
- ninth_ant 4y ago
  That is what Wotc is trying to do, yes. They are trying to post-facto invalidate 1.0a after 20+ years. The software equivalent would be if the FSF found some sneaky legalese, and came out with a hostile GPL 5 and simultaneously invalidated all previous versions of the GPL. Thus rendering everyone pre-v5 unable to publish going forward, with the only recourse to “upgrade” to the new version. It’s sick, and likely not legal, but in the D&D example Hasbro have a much bigger legal team than the people they are trying to bully. So the threat of a potentially expensive lawsuit to force small fish into a legally dubious license.
saghm 4y ago
> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? I don't know their exact reasoning, but I always add licenses when publishing software I write, and they always are ones I didn't design (because I've never written a license myself). I don't think it's that crazy to use an established license that seems to be working well in a community you'd like to emulate when trying to launch you're own; I doubt Paizo had any more idea than the rest of us that WotC would pull something like this. > And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC? And cannot they simply switch to another license, if 2nd edition is truly a full rewrite? My (admittedly primitive) understanding of licensing was that once something was released publicly with an indefinite license, it generally wouldn't be possible to retract that later. The copyright holder can change licenses as they see fit, but nobody will be bound by the new license unless they accept it or use a new version of the product that doesn't offer the old license. This leads me to theorize that one of a few things could be going on here: 1. The new version of the OGL (1.1) disallows you to continue using the old version (1.0) once you start using something with it. If this turns out to be the case, then people would be able to continue using the materials as-is at the last point where the OGL 1.0 was offered, but they wouldn't be able to use any future changes without accepting version 1.1 as a replacement for all of the preexisting content as well. WotC might have only intended this, but due to poor communications and/or wording in the license change, people got worried and then the narrative got out of control 2. The license works like I described in option 1 due to WotC knowing that they can't actually retroactively change the license for people already using it, but they intentionally obfuscated this to try to scare people into switching to using the new version even if they shouldn't technically have to * The license does actually a say that it's overriding the previous one, which is not actually something a license is supposed to be able to. WotC either doesn't realize this or is hoping that in a legal battle they either can either prolong it to starve their opponents of resources or manage to convince a judge to rule against the existing consensus and establish a new precedent. I think that option 2 is the most likely by a slight margin, but I might be biased as someone who played PF1 and now plays PF2. Option 3 would be the scariest to me given that a prolonged legal battle seems like it would be the most insulated from public opinion, which I think is mostly against the new license right now.
Macha 4y ago
> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? Let's imagine a scenario: 1. Paizo releases Pathfinder 1E. It's uses material from D&D 3.5 SRD which requires it to use the OGL. 2. A third party releases a campaign for pathfinder 1E. It uses material from pathfinder 1E which requires it to use the OGL 3. Paizo releases Pathfinder 2E. They change to CC BY-SA for their open components. 4. I now want to update that campaign to the 2E rules. But the original campaign publication insists I must use OGL, and Pathfinder 2E insists I use CC BY-SA and now I cannot. I think a mix of (a) the scenario above, (b) legal CYA in case it was found Pathfinder 2E was too close to 3.5e material and (c) using what they're used to led to the decision to continue to use OGL for Pathfinder 2E.
- the_af 4y ago
  I see. All the "fun" of software licensing, only for pen and paper games. It's like we are already in hell.
poulpy123 4y ago
On top of what the other said about having a license that is well known, one of the rationale is not having to spend a lot of time and money being sure that nothing covered but the OGL in version 1 is used in version 2

by the_af 4y ago

morelisp 4y ago

> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? Why do organizations other than the FSF use the GPL? Edit because fuck this site's rate limits. > the GPL doesn't put organizations that choose that license at the mercy of the FSF. IMO the OGL doesn't either - this is really a radical interpretation WotC is testing and Dancey's statements alone - at the time and today - are going to be enough to get the ridiculousness dismissed. (IANAL TINLA, but I do have some ancient - like 2003-era - OGL-published stuff floating around.) Conversely the idea that you might need to agree to a newer license to get ongoing access to new things - there's a close parallel with the FSF and the GFDL (where I disagreed) and the Tivo/patent clauses in GPL3 (where I agreed). But that has nothing to do with the license per se and everything to do with still wanting what the license holder-author is offering.

the_af 4y ago
Well, the GPL doesn't put organizations that choose that license at the mercy of the FSF. The FSF isn't a business competing with the organizations that choose the GPL. The FSF also cannot change the rules of the license a posteriori. The OGL doesn't look much like the GPL. Wizards of the Coast is a business in direct competition to others using the OGL. It's also crazy that something under the OGL falls in WotC's jurisdiction even if it uses no rules or settings from D&D -- I must have misunderstood this because this is simply too crazy to be true.
- Macha 4y ago
  > The FSF also cannot change the rules of the license a posteriori. GNU can and has changed the rules of one of their licenses. Specifically the GFDL 1.3 was released to allow all the wikis licensed under GFDL 1.1+/GFDL1.2+ to migrate to CC-BY-SA. This is arguably a case of using the power for good, but fear of them using the power for bad is exactly why e.g. Linux is GPLv2-only rather than GPLv2-or-later
  - the_af 4y ago
    If I understand this correctly, your example isn't a case of retroactively modifying a license. If you publish something under an X+ license, aren't you effectively saying "the conditions of this or a later revision apply"? You are willingly choosing to use this version or a later one. So if a later one changes one of the provisions of the prior version, this isn't a retroactive change but something you explicitly wanted when you used version X+. Version X isn't changed at all, it's just that you explicitly said you accepted version X+1 whenever it became available. Is this the same situation with the OGL and Paizo? Is Pathfinder licensed under OGL version X+? Seems... unwise. Not like the GPL or whatever, because the GPL is not aimed at restricting your business success and is not designed by your direct business competitor!
    - Macha 4y ago
      > Is this the same situation with the OGL and Paizo? Is Pathfinder licensed under OGL version X+? Yes. There are two reasons for this, one is that the first edition of pathfinder had to be, because it used material from D&D 3.5, and then the second edition didn't want to break compatibility with the first edition's ecosystem, and the second is it would violate the copyright of the OGL itself to use a modified version without an "or later version" clause. The same would be true for the GPL, except the GPL expressly provides a mechanism to choose to use the or later clause or not.
      - the_af 4y ago
        Ah, I get it! So Pathfinder 1st Ed was based in a version of D&D (3.5) which already used version OGL+! That's the piece of the puzzle I was missing: the minute Paizo decided to fork D&D, they became locked into this unfortunate licensing choice, at the mercy of future license updates. I also understand you cannot decide to use a "pinned" version if the original you're licensing is already using a "plus" version. In hindsight, it looks like a terrible decision for Pathfinder to have accepted those terms. Had I been then, I would have made an entirely new game "in the spirit" of 3.5 but starting from scratch. I guess they opted for the more appealing route of trying to more directly appeal to disgruntled fans or D&D, and now they are facing the downsides of that. It sucks, agreed. I guess this is a lesson about the risks of trying to ride another company's success instead of making your own thing. And yes, it happens with software as well. (I'm still not convinced this will affect companies/games using the OGL for things entirely unrelated to D&D. That'd be surreal!)
lovich 4y ago
If you navigate to the comment you want to reply to, it doesn’t appear to be rate limited. Only when viewing the full thread
- morelisp 4y ago
  I’m referring to the actual rate limit because dang and I disagree about the average quality of my comments, not the idiosyncratic UI.
  - lovich 4y ago
    huh, I don't think I've ever actually triggered that and I've done some marathon posting sessions where I replied within <30 seconds. Is that a per user rate limiter?

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

> And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? The most reasonable opinion I have read on this is that Paizo themselves are not entirely convinced the second edition can be legally seen as an untainted full rewrite and use the OGL out of precaution. They should be able to relicense but Hasbro might sue them arguing that actually the licensing situation isn’t that clear.

Sebb767 4y ago

> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? Why would they when there's a well-known and (before recent events) fully trusted license already established within the community?

the_af 4y ago
That's probably why they used the OGL, agreed. But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? If you can do a major rules rewrite (and I understand Pathfinder is on the more complex/crunchy side of RPGs), surely you have the know-how to design your own license? Even if all the actors in this dramedy are profit-driven businesses, I can't wrap my head around the OGL not being driven by a consortium. How on earth does WotC have final say? In any case, they are probably regretting it now. I hope this sets a precedent.
- Sebb767 4y ago
  > But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? Microsoft also publishes software under open-source licenses [0]. The license is short and well-understood, it's not like a large piece of software that might contain backdoors. Also, people trust(-ed) that license. > If you can do a major rules rewrite [...], surely you have the know-how to design your own license? Yes, but you'd just end up with a similarly worded license that people don't know. Why spend that money? Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but I can easily see why they decided against that. Also, Paizo is probably sufficiently funded by now that suing them is a bit dangerous for WotC, as they risk a bad precedent. [0] Which are not necessarily competitors, but might also not be friendly towards MS.
  - the_af 4y ago
    > [0] Which are not necessarily competitors, but might also not be friendly towards MS. Until not that long ago, Microsoft considered open source licenses a "cancer". While they have changed their stance since then, I'm sure they did some major risk assessment and have safeguards in place of the kind a company like Paizo simply isn't capable of. More importantly, the core MS line of products isn't licensed with a license they don't control. "Not necessarily competitors" makes all the difference here! This is not a minor detail, but a major one. Look at how Wizards of the Coast is framing the issue, and I quote them [0]: > “the Open Game License was always intended to allow the community to help grow D&D and expand it creatively. It wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.” and > “OGL wasn’t intended to fund major competitors and it wasn’t intended to allow people to make D&D apps, videos, or anything other than printed (or printable) materials for use while gaming. We are updating the OGL in part to make that very clear.” [0] source: https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634 https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...

sleepybrett 4y ago

> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? Lawyers cost money. > And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? The theory is that they are not. > If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC? People point out that the PF2 works have OGL licenses. I'm sure we'll all find out in the coming weeks/months

Yuioup 4y ago

I thought that Pathfinder 2e was much like software development: The latest commit in a branch which has OGL 1.0 at its root. Does OGL 1.1 mean that /all/ branches are affected?

ninth_ant 4y ago
That is what Wotc is trying to do, yes. They are trying to post-facto invalidate 1.0a after 20+ years. The software equivalent would be if the FSF found some sneaky legalese, and came out with a hostile GPL 5 and simultaneously invalidated all previous versions of the GPL. Thus rendering everyone pre-v5 unable to publish going forward, with the only recourse to “upgrade” to the new version. It’s sick, and likely not legal, but in the D&D example Hasbro have a much bigger legal team than the people they are trying to bully. So the threat of a potentially expensive lawsuit to force small fish into a legally dubious license.

saghm 4y ago

> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? I don't know their exact reasoning, but I always add licenses when publishing software I write, and they always are ones I didn't design (because I've never written a license myself). I don't think it's that crazy to use an established license that seems to be working well in a community you'd like to emulate when trying to launch you're own; I doubt Paizo had any more idea than the rest of us that WotC would pull something like this. > And if they did a full rewrite, are they under any obligation at all to Wizards of the Coast? If they used the OGL to allow third-parties for Pathfinder, not D&D, what does this have to do with WotC? And cannot they simply switch to another license, if 2nd edition is truly a full rewrite? My (admittedly primitive) understanding of licensing was that once something was released publicly with an indefinite license, it generally wouldn't be possible to retract that later. The copyright holder can change licenses as they see fit, but nobody will be bound by the new license unless they accept it or use a new version of the product that doesn't offer the old license. This leads me to theorize that one of a few things could be going on here: 1. The new version of the OGL (1.1) disallows you to continue using the old version (1.0) once you start using something with it. If this turns out to be the case, then people would be able to continue using the materials as-is at the last point where the OGL 1.0 was offered, but they wouldn't be able to use any future changes without accepting version 1.1 as a replacement for all of the preexisting content as well. WotC might have only intended this, but due to poor communications and/or wording in the license change, people got worried and then the narrative got out of control 2. The license works like I described in option 1 due to WotC knowing that they can't actually retroactively change the license for people already using it, but they intentionally obfuscated this to try to scare people into switching to using the new version even if they shouldn't technically have to * The license does actually a say that it's overriding the previous one, which is not actually something a license is supposed to be able to. WotC either doesn't realize this or is hoping that in a legal battle they either can either prolong it to starve their opponents of resources or manage to convince a judge to rule against the existing consensus and establish a new precedent. I think that option 2 is the most likely by a slight margin, but I might be biased as someone who played PF1 and now plays PF2. Option 3 would be the scariest to me given that a prolonged legal battle seems like it would be the most insulated from public opinion, which I think is mostly against the new license right now.

Macha 4y ago

> Why did Paizo use a license not designed by them? Let's imagine a scenario: 1. Paizo releases Pathfinder 1E. It's uses material from D&D 3.5 SRD which requires it to use the OGL. 2. A third party releases a campaign for pathfinder 1E. It uses material from pathfinder 1E which requires it to use the OGL 3. Paizo releases Pathfinder 2E. They change to CC BY-SA for their open components. 4. I now want to update that campaign to the 2E rules. But the original campaign publication insists I must use OGL, and Pathfinder 2E insists I use CC BY-SA and now I cannot. I think a mix of (a) the scenario above, (b) legal CYA in case it was found Pathfinder 2E was too close to 3.5e material and (c) using what they're used to led to the decision to continue to use OGL for Pathfinder 2E.

the_af 4y ago
I see. All the "fun" of software licensing, only for pen and paper games. It's like we are already in hell.

poulpy123 4y ago

On top of what the other said about having a license that is well known, one of the rationale is not having to spend a lot of time and money being sure that nothing covered but the OGL in version 1 is used in version 2