5 ms·

> 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 establish

> 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...
- indigochill 4y ago
  > But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? Not necessarily. In software we have the MIT license. Anyone can freeze any version of the product and use/distribute it freely in perpetuity regardless of whatever relicensing may happen later to other versions. It sounds like the OGL was written in that spirit. Whether its legal language will back that up in court, maybe we'll find out.
  - the_af 4y ago
    I don't think the MIT license or the GPL (mentioned by someone else) are good parallels. When you release software under an open source license such as those, you are not using a license designed and solely controlled by your business competitor! The OGL situation would be like Microsoft releasing Windows under a license designed and solely controlled by Apple.
    - seba_dos1 4y ago
      So what? Unless it has a clause that allows licensees to use a newer version of the license at their will (like GPL optionally has), it doesn't matter who "controls" the license at all. It has no impact on you and your work. You used a specific set of rules as a license for your work and unless you explicitly allowed it, these rules don't change.
      - the_af 4y ago
        Well, at the very least it seems unwise. Your core business shouldn't be put at the mercy of a competitor. I see the new management of Wizards of the Coast as now arguing that "the OGL was never meant to fund competitors [to D&D's owners]". It seems they are echoing my sentiments! Whether what they are attempting is lawful is besides the issue: what matters is that Paizo and whoever wouldn't be at risk had they not chosen a license designed by -- and completely controlled by -- their business competition!
        seba_dos1 4y ago
- thesuitonym 4y ago
  >But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? Maybe, but a license is just an agreement between two parties on how they can use a copyrighted work. And in the original text, there was no means for WotC to revoke the license from other companies. It would be like if you released software using GPL2, then the GNU project released GPL3 which was much more restrictive, required you to pay rms for any software you release and tried to claim that anything licensed with GPL2 was now licensed with GPL3. You'd think that crazy, and nobody would be asking you why you released software with a license you didn't design.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It would be like if you released software using GPL2, then the GNU project released GPL3 which was much more restrictive, required you to pay rms for any software you release and tried to claim that anything licensed with GPL2 was now licensed with GPL3. Yes, but that's not so hard to imagine, it's basically: Imagine the GPL is issued by a for-profit company not an ideological nonprofit, and imagine the “X or any later versiom” clause is replaced by or “Any authorized version clause”, and imagine that the for-profit company decides that the use of the older versions are contrary to its existing interests? Heck, there is a reason that even as it is written, and even with the FSF being a nonprofit with a stable ideology, some people, when licensing their own work, usd GPLvWhatever without the or-any-later version clause.
    - the_af 4y ago
      I think the fact the OGL was designed by a business, not a nonprofit, and that this business' goals compete with your own, makes this situation radically different. The FSF doesn't compete with your business and doesn't want a cut of your business. Moreover, if you are going to use a license designed by a competing business for your main line of products (e.g. Pathfinder) you better make sure your competitor is not the sole arbiter of that license! A consortium of businesses would make more sense.
- lmm 4y ago
  > But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? No? This kind of thing happens all the time with various kinds of contracts, e.g. in finance if one bank comes up with some kind of instrument most of their competitors will try to follow the same thing. It's like asking why would you use a file format designed by a direct business competitor.
  - the_af 4y ago
    But not really, right? Using a competitor's file format is a way of adding interoperability to your product. And a file format cannot dictate how you can legally use or sell the whole of your product; at worst you can be barred from using that particular format if your competitor sees it fit. The bank analogy also doesn't match. A closer analogy would be if your bank must use their competitor's installations and infrastructure, and risk bankruptcy whenever the competitor thinks they don't want to lend them their installations anymore. Using your direct competitor's license, fully under their control, is closer to handing them the keys to your company for no obvious benefit, right?
    - lmm 4y ago
      > The bank analogy also doesn't match. A closer analogy would be if your bank must use their competitor's installations and infrastructure, and risk bankruptcy whenever the competitor thinks they don't want to lend them their installations anymore. No it isn't? The license is just the contractual agreement. Like, I'm not sure if the second bank to offer overnight repurchase agreements literally copied the first one's contract and just changed their name, but they certainly could've, and that's been normal practice with some newer financial products. > Using your direct competitor's license, fully under their control, is closer to handing them the keys to your company for no obvious benefit, right? No, not at all? How is it "under their control"? They can publish a new version of it but that has nothing to do with you unless you want it to.
      - the_af 4y ago
        But your bank analogy is still flawed, isn't it? This isn't a case of a bank following suit and copying another bank's offering, this is a case of a company using terms of another company and riding on their "infrastructure" (IP, licenses, etc). For a RPG company, these intangibles are infrastructure, not legalese. Remember, this runs on human brains, not on computers or ATMs. > No, not at all? How is it "under their control"? They can publish a new version of it but that has nothing to do with you unless you want it to. It is under their control because they are the only ones that can modify, add or remove provisions to the license. This is like a file format where only one company can determine the standard: it sucks for everyone else! At best you're playing catch-up, at worst the owner can bar you from using the format. A consortium would be less risky. And apparently the current situation shows it was very risky indeed!

> 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...
indigochill 4y ago
> But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? Not necessarily. In software we have the MIT license. Anyone can freeze any version of the product and use/distribute it freely in perpetuity regardless of whatever relicensing may happen later to other versions. It sounds like the OGL was written in that spirit. Whether its legal language will back that up in court, maybe we'll find out.
- the_af 4y ago
  I don't think the MIT license or the GPL (mentioned by someone else) are good parallels. When you release software under an open source license such as those, you are not using a license designed and solely controlled by your business competitor! The OGL situation would be like Microsoft releasing Windows under a license designed and solely controlled by Apple.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    So what? Unless it has a clause that allows licensees to use a newer version of the license at their will (like GPL optionally has), it doesn't matter who "controls" the license at all. It has no impact on you and your work. You used a specific set of rules as a license for your work and unless you explicitly allowed it, these rules don't change.
    - the_af 4y ago
      Well, at the very least it seems unwise. Your core business shouldn't be put at the mercy of a competitor. I see the new management of Wizards of the Coast as now arguing that "the OGL was never meant to fund competitors [to D&D's owners]". It seems they are echoing my sentiments! Whether what they are attempting is lawful is besides the issue: what matters is that Paizo and whoever wouldn't be at risk had they not chosen a license designed by -- and completely controlled by -- their business competition!
      - seba_dos1 4y ago
thesuitonym 4y ago
>But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? Maybe, but a license is just an agreement between two parties on how they can use a copyrighted work. And in the original text, there was no means for WotC to revoke the license from other companies. It would be like if you released software using GPL2, then the GNU project released GPL3 which was much more restrictive, required you to pay rms for any software you release and tried to claim that anything licensed with GPL2 was now licensed with GPL3. You'd think that crazy, and nobody would be asking you why you released software with a license you didn't design.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > It would be like if you released software using GPL2, then the GNU project released GPL3 which was much more restrictive, required you to pay rms for any software you release and tried to claim that anything licensed with GPL2 was now licensed with GPL3. Yes, but that's not so hard to imagine, it's basically: Imagine the GPL is issued by a for-profit company not an ideological nonprofit, and imagine the “X or any later versiom” clause is replaced by or “Any authorized version clause”, and imagine that the for-profit company decides that the use of the older versions are contrary to its existing interests? Heck, there is a reason that even as it is written, and even with the FSF being a nonprofit with a stable ideology, some people, when licensing their own work, usd GPLvWhatever without the or-any-later version clause.
  - the_af 4y ago
    I think the fact the OGL was designed by a business, not a nonprofit, and that this business' goals compete with your own, makes this situation radically different. The FSF doesn't compete with your business and doesn't want a cut of your business. Moreover, if you are going to use a license designed by a competing business for your main line of products (e.g. Pathfinder) you better make sure your competitor is not the sole arbiter of that license! A consortium of businesses would make more sense.
lmm 4y ago
> But it's crazy, right? Using a license designed by a direct business competitor? No? This kind of thing happens all the time with various kinds of contracts, e.g. in finance if one bank comes up with some kind of instrument most of their competitors will try to follow the same thing. It's like asking why would you use a file format designed by a direct business competitor.
- the_af 4y ago
  But not really, right? Using a competitor's file format is a way of adding interoperability to your product. And a file format cannot dictate how you can legally use or sell the whole of your product; at worst you can be barred from using that particular format if your competitor sees it fit. The bank analogy also doesn't match. A closer analogy would be if your bank must use their competitor's installations and infrastructure, and risk bankruptcy whenever the competitor thinks they don't want to lend them their installations anymore. Using your direct competitor's license, fully under their control, is closer to handing them the keys to your company for no obvious benefit, right?
  - lmm 4y ago
    > The bank analogy also doesn't match. A closer analogy would be if your bank must use their competitor's installations and infrastructure, and risk bankruptcy whenever the competitor thinks they don't want to lend them their installations anymore. No it isn't? The license is just the contractual agreement. Like, I'm not sure if the second bank to offer overnight repurchase agreements literally copied the first one's contract and just changed their name, but they certainly could've, and that's been normal practice with some newer financial products. > Using your direct competitor's license, fully under their control, is closer to handing them the keys to your company for no obvious benefit, right? No, not at all? How is it "under their control"? They can publish a new version of it but that has nothing to do with you unless you want it to.
    - the_af 4y ago
      But your bank analogy is still flawed, isn't it? This isn't a case of a bank following suit and copying another bank's offering, this is a case of a company using terms of another company and riding on their "infrastructure" (IP, licenses, etc). For a RPG company, these intangibles are infrastructure, not legalese. Remember, this runs on human brains, not on computers or ATMs. > No, not at all? How is it "under their control"? They can publish a new version of it but that has nothing to do with you unless you want it to. It is under their control because they are the only ones that can modify, add or remove provisions to the license. This is like a file format where only one company can determine the standard: it sucks for everyone else! At best you're playing catch-up, at worst the owner can bar you from using the format. A consortium would be less risky. And apparently the current situation shows it was very risky indeed!