4 ms·

> 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

> 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 Unless it has a clause that allows licensees to use a newer version of the license at their will (like GPL optionally has), it doesn't matter who "controls" the license at all.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
      > Your core business shouldn't be put at the mercy of a competitor. Of course, but that's not what happens when you use someone else's license at all. And no, whoever used OGL with their project is not at any risk at all - unless they used or made derivative works of existing WotC's content licensed under OGL, in which case they had no other choice than to use OGL anyway.
      - the_af 4y ago
        Hard to understand what all the ruckus is about then. > Of course, but that's not what happens when you use someone else's license at all. And no, whoever used OGL with their project is not at any risk at all - unless they used or made derivative works of existing WotC's content licensed under OGL, in which case they had no other choice than to use OGL anyway. Other people in this comments section are arguing otherwise! Whose interpretation should I trust? Yours? Theirs? Wizards'?
        seba_dos1 4y ago
        Are they? I've read several lengthy threads by now and haven't seen such stance being proposed. The issue with Pathfinder is that it was a derivative work of D&D, and although it has been rewritten since it's not clear whether the rewrite still is or not. If it is, then it couldn't be licensed on anything else than OGL and may be affected by OGL 1.1; if it's not, then it's simply unaffected by OGL 1.1 (or at least not in a way that will cause any troubles), since it's not up to WotC to decide how is this work being licensed.
        the_af 4y ago
        > Are they? I've read several lengthy threads by now and haven't seen such stance being proposed. Yes, they are. Use CTRL+F to find out. People here are arguing this can be interpreted to impact even games that are unrelated to D&D mechanics or setting. People are freaking out in a sense that would seem disproportionate if this only affected Paizo. Also, please read the open letter mentioned in the link. Of course, feel free to argue with them (either the commenters here or with the authors of the letter) if you want, but please not with me: I'm the one asking questions, not offering explanations.

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
    > Your core business shouldn't be put at the mercy of a competitor. Of course, but that's not what happens when you use someone else's license at all. And no, whoever used OGL with their project is not at any risk at all - unless they used or made derivative works of existing WotC's content licensed under OGL, in which case they had no other choice than to use OGL anyway.
    - the_af 4y ago
      Hard to understand what all the ruckus is about then. > Of course, but that's not what happens when you use someone else's license at all. And no, whoever used OGL with their project is not at any risk at all - unless they used or made derivative works of existing WotC's content licensed under OGL, in which case they had no other choice than to use OGL anyway. Other people in this comments section are arguing otherwise! Whose interpretation should I trust? Yours? Theirs? Wizards'?
      - seba_dos1 4y ago
        Are they? I've read several lengthy threads by now and haven't seen such stance being proposed. The issue with Pathfinder is that it was a derivative work of D&D, and although it has been rewritten since it's not clear whether the rewrite still is or not. If it is, then it couldn't be licensed on anything else than OGL and may be affected by OGL 1.1; if it's not, then it's simply unaffected by OGL 1.1 (or at least not in a way that will cause any troubles), since it's not up to WotC to decide how is this work being licensed.
        the_af 4y ago
        > Are they? I've read several lengthy threads by now and haven't seen such stance being proposed. Yes, they are. Use CTRL+F to find out. People here are arguing this can be interpreted to impact even games that are unrelated to D&D mechanics or setting. People are freaking out in a sense that would seem disproportionate if this only affected Paizo. Also, please read the open letter mentioned in the link. Of course, feel free to argue with them (either the commenters here or with the authors of the letter) if you want, but please not with me: I'm the one asking questions, not offering explanations.