3 ms·

> 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 w

by the_af 4y ago

> 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. I understand this, but you don't use licenses designed by your business competitors whose main product is in direct competition to your own. The analogy here would be Microsoft using a license designed by Apple for Windows and MS Office! Or whatever their major line of products is nowadays.

Macha 4y ago
And yet Apple run iCloud on Linux servers on Microsoft Azure. Is it really that different? (EDIT: Google says they moved to GCP in 2018, but doesn't change the point)
- the_af 4y ago
  I think it's different. In your example, what is the license Apple is using for its major product that was designed by Microsoft? A software platform is not a license. But also, Apple moved to GCP, problem solved. This doesn't seem to be the same situation as Paizo's, is it?
  - Macha 4y ago
    If Paizo wholly owns the IP (PF1E: No, SF: Maybe, PF2E: Probably), then they can move to a competing license like CC-BY-SA. That would solve the "cannot distribute their own products" problem, but it would mean their entire ecosystem including third parties would need to propagate that change. It also doesn't change the fact that Wizards could argue they have an OGL v1.0a+ license, and use OGL v1.1 to put pathfinder 1e srd on their new vtt without paying paizo for example
    - the_af 4y ago
      Yes, now I understand. Thanks for this and your other explanation. If I were Paizo I would sever Pathfinder entirely from the OGL, especially if they rewrote their game from scratch, and ask modules writers to switch to the new licensing. But what do I know?

by the_af 4y ago

Macha 4y ago

And yet Apple run iCloud on Linux servers on Microsoft Azure. Is it really that different? (EDIT: Google says they moved to GCP in 2018, but doesn't change the point)

the_af 4y ago
I think it's different. In your example, what is the license Apple is using for its major product that was designed by Microsoft? A software platform is not a license. But also, Apple moved to GCP, problem solved. This doesn't seem to be the same situation as Paizo's, is it?
- Macha 4y ago
  If Paizo wholly owns the IP (PF1E: No, SF: Maybe, PF2E: Probably), then they can move to a competing license like CC-BY-SA. That would solve the "cannot distribute their own products" problem, but it would mean their entire ecosystem including third parties would need to propagate that change. It also doesn't change the fact that Wizards could argue they have an OGL v1.0a+ license, and use OGL v1.1 to put pathfinder 1e srd on their new vtt without paying paizo for example
  - the_af 4y ago
    Yes, now I understand. Thanks for this and your other explanation. If I were Paizo I would sever Pathfinder entirely from the OGL, especially if they rewrote their game from scratch, and ask modules writers to switch to the new licensing. But what do I know?