Pathfinder Infinite and the ORC License

Okay, so to make sure I'm understanding the big takeaway:

- The Infinite license is for stuff published on Path/Starfinder Infinite. It allows you to use most of what Paizo has published, but you cannot publish anything on Infinite outside of infinite, and can't use anything not published by Paizo. If I wanted to sell a supplement for an adventure path, I'd use Infinite.

- The ORC license is for stuff published outside of Path/Starfinder Infinite. It covers basic game mechanics, but not setting-specific lore, and only content published post-PF2R. I would use the ORC if I wanted to write and sell a setting-agnostic adventure or spinoff game of my own that uses PF2R/Starfinder 2e as a base.

- The OGL covers material published prior to the remaster, as well as some content produced by WotC. This is the license I would use for anything older than PF2R that isn't going on Infinite, such as an adventure meant for Star/Pathfiner 1e, or something with a gelatinous cube in it.

I know there are some exceptions (Rage of the Elements is ORC-compatible, Season of Ghosts is not), but did I get the gist?

Wut?

OK, so please correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong.

1. We cannot publish Infinite products under ORC, but that's OK because we don't need to anyway?

2. If we publish an Infinite product based on a Paizo ORC product, we don't need any additional license beyond the Infinite license?

3. If we use Open Game Content from a Paizo OGL product, we have to publish it under both OGL and Infinite license as normal?

4. If we use setting/characters/etc but no Open Game Content from a Paizo OGL product, we don't have to publish it under OGL with the Infinite license. This is because the it's the Infinite license is what allows us to do that, not the OGL?

Some examples might help clarify. Because I’m getting confused as to some of the intricacies of Infinite. For a start.

So if I'm understanding this correctly (and I hope I'm not) this... seems rather like a significant step back for open gaming? I understand the OGL and ORC not being mixable in the same product (that's pretty much unavoidable given the way the OGL is set up) and from what I've seen the ORC is overall an improvement over the OGL. But with what this is saying, PF2 compatible third-party content is going to be siloed into Infinite content and ORC content, with no ability to cross between the two, thereby restricting the ability of third-parties to make use of game mechanics in a way that they hadn't been restricted previously? And one of the largest sources of third-party PF2 content won't actually be getting contributed to that open system?

So, say a non-Infinite third-party publisher (like Roll for Combat) were to publish a book, and someone wanted to publish an Infinite release which adapts the mechanics of that book to the Lost Omens setting. E.g., "How could Eldamon fit into Golarion", that sort of thing. If the third-party book was under the OGL, this would have been perfectly possible and probably beneficial to both the third-party, Paizo, and the author of the work which helps tie them together; but now if the third-party book is published under the ORC, this is not possible?

And, conversely, a setting-neutral game mechanic which happens to be included as part of a book on Infinite is now not going to be available for third-party publishers who are using the ORC, whereas it would have been in the previous set up under the OGL? I suppose that particular point could be resolved by the author publishing the same (setting-neutral) mechanics both on Infinite and as a separate ORC product, but that'd depend on the publisher taking the time to do so rather than it being something more elegantly built into the licensing system itself.

I've made use of some Infinite material before in my campaigns, but if I'm understanding this correctly I'll probably be disinclined to make many more Infinite purchases. The open mechanics is such an important part of Pathfinder to me that it's why I've not spent much time investigating other, non-open RPG systems; to have PF2-compatible content siloed off from that open ecosystem seems really unfortunate and honestly would decrease my interest in Infinite content (and all but eliminate any interest I had of eventually publishing something using Infinite).

Again, very much hoping that I'm misunderstanding something here.

- The ORC license is for stuff published outside of Path/Starfinder Infinite. It covers basic game mechanics, but not setting-specific lore, and only content published post-PF2R. I would use the ORC if I wanted to write and sell a setting-agnostic adventure or spinoff game of my own that uses PF2R/Starfinder 2e as a base.

Not quite. The ORC only covers content that has been released as Licensed Material under the ORC. This is (basically) any rules content from ORC-licensed books. Not just material published past a certain date. You'd use the ORC if you want to publish (whether you sell it or not) any product that includes material you didn't create yourself that you gain permission to use via the ORC.

- The OGL covers material published prior to the remaster, as well as some content produced by WotC. This is the license I would use for anything older than PF2R that isn't going on Infinite, such as an adventure meant for Star/Pathfiner 1e, or something with a gelatinous cube in it.

As with above, it's not about the date something was published, but what license it was published under.

I know there are some exceptions (Rage of the Elements is ORC-compatible, Season of Ghosts is not), but did I get the gist?

"ORC-compatible" isn't really a thing. Either the content is licensed under the ORC or it isn't. In this case, the content is compatible with the terminology and design assumptions of the Remastered core books (which are released under the ORC), but Rage of Elements and the content within is not accessible to other publishers via the ORC. We may release a version of the book with different licensing in the future, but until we do, anyone wanting to publish material using the kineticist class or other rules expressions from that source need to publish under the OGL.

This reads like a random passage from a Lewis Carroll book.

There are known knowns. There are also known unknowns. But there are also unknown unknowns...

OK, so please correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong.

You have 1 and 2 down perfectly.

3. If we use Open Game Content from a Paizo OGL product, we have to publish it under both OGL and Infinite license as normal?

Sort of. What you're looking at is provenance of any given content. There is Open Game Content in Lost Omens Mwangi Expanse, for example, that is 100% original material that Paizo owns, like the conrasu ancestry or the edicts and anathemas of the regional deities. Paizo didn't need the OGL to print this content, and so, if you're publishing under the Infinite license, neither do you. But, the grippli ancestry is based on Wizards of the Coast IP (grippli is an invented word that they own the copyright to), so you'd still need to cite the OGL if you wanted to use that specific content in your own work (whether published on Infinite or elsewhere). If something first appeared in a Paizo product, or is based on mythology (both in terms of name and concept/expression), then it's safe to use without the OGL in an Infinite product.

4. If we use setting/characters/etc but no Open Game Content from a Paizo OGL product, we don't have to publish it under OGL with the Infinite license. This is because the it's the Infinite license is what allows us to do that, not the OGL?

More or less, yes. The Infinite FAQ goes into a bit more nuance than this, because there are setting elements that do originate from OGL sources, which may not be apparent to folks. For example, the demon lord Kostchtchie is property of Wizards of the Coast, and was made available to other publishers via the "Epic Level Handbook" content that was part of the 3.5 SRD. So Paizo can and has included him in multiple products that were licensed under the OGL, and in those products, the 3.5 SRD is cited in the correct spot in the book's Section 15 copyright declarations, as the OGL requires.

So even though he's mentioned in a work of fiction (like the "Bonedust Dolls" Pathfinder's Journal stories from Reign of Winter), he is still Open Game Content. This means that should we ever release that story as a standalone ePub, we either need to change the text referring to Wizards' IP or include the OGL in the ePub so that we have the right to publish their copyrighted material.

To answer your question directly, the Infinite license grants you permission to use any content that Paizo owns, but for setting elements that Paizo doesn't own, only the license that gave Paizo permission to publish that in the first place can grant you permission to do the same.

Some examples might help clarify. Because I’m getting confused as to some of the intricacies of Infinite. For a start.

The Infinite FAQ includes a list of some examples in the "How Do I Know If My Product Contains Open Game Content?" section of the Ownership and Licenses page.

It's not an exhaustive list, but it should help set people on the right track when publishing their own material.

I understand the thought process behind this, I really do. But I feel it misses a key consideration: Open Content is not incidental to Pathfinder users or writers and publishers, it is part of the package. It is for many a key checkbox in the positive column for Pathfinder AND Paizo. Eric Mona talked up open gaming a LOT during the ORC creation process and this decision to exclude open content and the ORC itself from Infinite releases going forward flies in the face of that. It feels a bit two faced to me, talking up Open Gaming, telling everyone else to embrace the ORC, then turning away from it for your own product ecosystem. It's not a good look. And for what benefit? To catch a few edge cases where someone misinterprets what is and isn't Open? A simple letter here and there from your lawyers can clear that up. It is not, in my opinion, worth the ill will this decision creates or the hampering/splitting/insulting of the PF2 3rd party ecosystem.

I don't expect my words to change anything, I'm a nobody. But this certainly makes me not only more hesitant to ever publish on Infinite again, but even to support it through purchases or endorse it in the general PF2 community.

Paizo and PF2 are either dedicated to open gaming or they are not, halfway closed is still closed.

So if I'm understanding this correctly (and I hope I'm not) this... seems rather like a significant step back for open gaming? I understand the OGL and ORC not being mixable in the same product (that's pretty much unavoidable given the way the OGL is set up) and from what I've seen the ORC is overall an improvement over the OGL. But with what this is saying, PF2 compatible third-party content is going to be siloed into Infinite content and ORC content, with no ability to cross between the two, thereby restricting the ability of third-parties to make use of game mechanics in a way that they hadn't been restricted previously? And one of the largest sources of third-party PF2 content won't actually be getting contributed to that open system?

This policy has nothing to do with content published beyond Pathfinder Infinite. So if you want to make "The Compleat Thief" and use rules expressions derived from or taken verbatim from the rogue class feats section of Pathfinder Player Core, the ORC allows you to do so.

If you want to put the Pathfinder Compatible logo on the cover of that book, you can do so with the existing Pathfinder Compatibility License. That is true regardless of what license you use to publish the rules content within that book (so long as the content is actually compatible and it's not a GURPS rulebook just trying to use our trademarks.)

But yes, it is true that content published on Infinite won't be accessible via the ORC beyond Infinite. If you want your product to exist within the ORC ecosystem, you should publish it under the ORC or Compatibility Licenses instead of Infinite.

So, say a non-Infinite third-party publisher (like Roll for Combat) were to publish a book, and someone wanted to publish an Infinite release which adapts the mechanics of that book to the Lost Omens setting. E.g., "How could Eldamon fit into Golarion", that sort of thing. If the third-party book was under the OGL, this would have been perfectly possible and probably beneficial to both the third-party, Paizo, and the author of the work which helps tie them together; but now if the third-party book is published under the ORC, this is not possible?

Basically, yes. The tradeoff of publishing on Infinite was always that you got to use and sell Paizo's IP so long as you did so only on Infinite. Publishing under a single license is cleanest, however, because it means you don't run into contradictions between the OGL/ORC and Infinite licenses. Like, currently, the OGL tells you that if you use Open Game Content, you have to release that content to downstream users without restriction, but the Infinite license requires that the content exist only on Infinite. We can't change the OGL, so if someone wants to use Open Game Content on Infinite, that's the license they have to operate under.

But when deciding what to do with ORC content, we were faced with the choice of introducing yet another exit point from the closed ecosystem, or simply allowing the Infinite license to do what it already does, which is let you use Paizo's IP. And it's not just about maintaining the closed ecosystem, but ensuring that someone didn't accidentally release Open Game Content into the ORC. We know that there's no Open Game Content in our ORC releases; we spent months of backbreaking work ensuring it was stripped out of Pathfinder Player Core and Pathfinder GM Core before we released the rules within under the ORC. We don't expect everyone publishing on Infinite to do the same, so we eliminated the possibility for anything on the marketplace to become ORC Licensed Material.

To examine your example more specifically, I actually reached out to Mark at Roll for Combat to get more info on the licensing specifics of Eldamon since I don't have a copy of the book to refer to. Turns out, "Eldamon" as well as the name, likeness, and lore of specific eldamon are Product Identity under the OGL. So they're off-limits anyway. There are a lot of intricacies to IP law in general and the OGL/ORC specifically, and by disallowing the ORC on Infinite, we hopefully keep things cleaner than they would be if we let multiple overlapping and sometimes contradicting licenses operate at the same time.

And, conversely, a setting-neutral game mechanic which happens to be included as part of a book on Infinite is now not going to be available for third-party publishers who are using the ORC, whereas it would have been in the previous set up under the OGL? I suppose that particular point could be resolved by the author publishing the same (setting-neutral) mechanics both on Infinite and as a separate ORC product, but that'd depend on the publisher taking the time to do so rather than it being something more elegantly built into the licensing system itself.

Again, you are correct. The goal of Infinite was never one of growing the corpus of material in the Open Gaming sphere, but rather to allow people to legally publish material that used our setting and other IP. Publishers' content being restricted to Infinite if released on Infinite is the intended behavior. The Infinite license stipulates that content published on it needs to be exclusive to Infinite. So even though a publisher still retains the copyright to their contributions, they would be violating this agreement by publishing the same content elsewhere. The OGL gives people a loophole that we'd prefer no one exploit, but we can't change the OGL, so that is what it is.

I've made use of some Infinite material before in my campaigns, but if I'm understanding this correctly I'll probably be disinclined to make many more Infinite purchases. The open mechanics is such an important part of Pathfinder to me that it's why I've not spent much time investigating other, non-open RPG systems; to have PF2-compatible content siloed off from that open ecosystem seems really unfortunate and honestly would decrease my interest in Infinite content (and all but eliminate any interest I had of eventually publishing something using Infinite).

I'm sorry to hear that, but it might just be the Pathfinder or Starfinder Infinite aren't for you. If a particular rule's status as Open Game Content is more important to you than whether it provides fun at your table, then you might be better served with content that isn't tied to Paizo's proprietary content. And if you don't want to publish material on Infinite, that's okay too. There are other licenses that do what it sounds like you're looking for, and I encourage you to use those instead.

Okay, this is just…really hurting my brain. So, I make 2e conversions of 1e Adventure Paths, and I do not want to put my stuff under the OGL from here on out if I don’t have to. If I’m referencing a book published under the OGL (like, say, AP#100: A Song in Silver), then do I HAVE to publish my conversion under the OGL? I’m not reprinting the whole book, just creating a supplementary document that makes minimal sense without the context from the original book.

And by a different coin, let’s say I want to use the Horde Lich from Book of the Dead, which is not under the ORC, would I be unable to reference that creature because that book is under the OGL? Or the vast number of NPCs in the Gamemastery Guide that weren’t reprinted in the GM Core. Like, obviously if it’s something like an aboleth then I have to use the OGL, but sahkils are Paizo’s IP, but still in Bestiary 3 under the OGL.

I am far from a lawyer, so a lot of this stuff is going over my head.

EDIT: Or, say, providing hyperlinks to AoN in the document. Is that something I can do without needing to include the OGL?

I understand the thought process behind this, I really do. But I feel it misses a key consideration: Open Content is not incidental to Pathfinder users or writers and publishers, it is part of the package. It is for many a key checkbox in the positive column for Pathfinder AND Paizo. Eric (sic) Mona talked up open gaming a LOT during the ORC creation process and this decision to exclude open content and the ORC itself from Infinite releases going forward flies in the face of that.

Paizo is still committed to open gaming, which is why we championed and funded the creation of the ORC. It's why we release our non-OGL game books under the ORC. It's why we go above and beyond the OGL and ORC to offer the Pathfinder and Starfinder Compatibility Licenses to allow people supporting our games and open gaming to use even more of our IP in their releases. And it's why we created Pathfinder Infinite to allow access to even more of our IP, but in exchange for a stricter set of distribution conditions. Publishers are free to use whichever of the various free licenses they feel meets their needs the best.

If I’m referencing a book published under the OGL (like, say, AP#100: A Song in Silver), then do I HAVE to publish it under the OGL? I’m not reprinting the whole book, just creating a supplementary document that makes minimal sense without the context from the original book.

It depends on the content you're referring to in your book. That book was Pathfinder First Edition, so way more of its content was derived from the 3.5 SRD than a Second Edition adventure path would be. But the OGL doesn't care about the book overall; it only cares about the specific content of your book.

You can, for example, refer to the character Strea Vestori by name, since Paizo owns her. But you can't refer to her as a tiefling, since Wizards of the Coast owns that word, and without the OGL, you don't have a license to use it.

The dragon Rivozair is even more complicated because, again, Paizo owns the name and most of the concept of the character, but she's an adult horned-devil-bound blue dragon, and now we're getting into some weird territory where judgment calls about what is and isn't Open Game Content come into play. The idea of "true dragons" with age categories that determine stats like size and Hit Dice and such are a copyrighted rules expression owned by Wizards of the Coast. Similarly, blue dragons, as a subset of chromatic evil dragons who have distinct breath weapons determined by their color, are also WotC IP. So you have to disentangle that stuff from the Paizo IP if you want to avoid the OGL. Similarly, horned devils are from the 3.5 SRD and not a Paizo creation, so that's another layer of complexity.

If you're just mentioning these characters by name, and, I dunno, writing a short story about them before the events of the adventure, then you can get around a lot of this by just using proper nouns and using a Paizo-owned term like nephilim or caliban or hellspawn if you need to refer to Strea's heritage. You can describe Rivozair a blue dragon (a dragon that is blue) instead of a "blue dragon" as a subset of chromatic dragons. You can even say she's an adult and bound to a devil. But if you're including any Pathfinder First Edition rules in your product, you likely still need the OGL.

If it's a conversion to Pathfinder Second Edition, you still need to de-OGL-ify the book, which is the same process we took to the Remastered books that start releasing tomorrow. You can make an NPC statblock for either of these characters, but you have to build them using Remastered rules or otherwise avoid specific rules expressions that derive from the 3.5 SRD.

It's possible—after all, we just did it for three whole books and are working on doing it to a fourth—but it's work, and it's nuanced. I don't want to discourage you from making the proposed product or something similar, but these are the realities of using another party's IP under license (be that the OGL, the ORC, or the Infinite license).

And by a different coin, let’s say I want to use the Horde Lich from Book of the Dead, which is not under the ORC, would I be unable to reference that creature because that book is under the OGL? Or the vast number of NPCs in the Gamemastery Guide that weren’t reprinted in the GM Core. Like, obviously if it’s something like an aboleth then I have to use the OGL, but sahkils are Paizo’s IP, but still in Bestiary 3 under the OGL.

You can reference the horde lich, GameMastery Guide NPCs, and sahkils, for sure. You can even use more specific references to them via a micro stat block or give tactics advice for running them, referring to specific abilities (with a few exceptions, but mostly). You can reprint their stat blocks in their entirety with a few modifications, like removing alignment and any spell or feat that we didn't reprint in the Remaster or that uses another company's IP.

I am far from a lawyer, so a lot of this stuff is going over my head.

It may surprise you, but IANAL either lol. Unfortunately, IP law and licenses and such are lawyers' domain, so we're doomed to these sorts of arcane discussions as long as we lay peons try to understand them. Add to that the infinite combination of specifics of any given product, and it's a lot to untangle. That's part of the reason we are resetting things with the ORC in our own publications, and why we opted for only allowing a single license (Infinite) instead of two (Infinite and ORC) for non-OGL material on the site.

I encourage you to check out the live stream next Tuesday, either live or on-demand afterward, as a lot of this stuff is easier to grok in conversation instead of read. It's certainly easier for me to talk about than to write about, at least. We'll be taking questions through the rest of the week, so if you have more questions or clarifications you'd like, please send 'em my way and I'll do what I can to address them.

I don't think my ADHD can handle publishing anything more on PFI now. I'm so confused, and I can't afford to pay someone else to figure it out for me on each product.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

Some examples might help clarify. Because I’m getting confused as to some of the intricacies of Infinite. For a start.

The Infinite FAQ includes a list of some examples in the "How Do I Know If My Product Contains Open Game Content?" section of the Ownership and Licenses page.

It's not an exhaustive list, but it should help set people on the right track when publishing their own material.

Ok, thanks Mark. That is helpful. However, I think I’m confused a little about the interactions or functions/properties of the following:

* The OGL
* The ORC
* The Pathfinder Compatibility Licence/Starfinder Combatibility Licence (PCL/SCL)
* Community Use Policy (CUP)
* Infinite Licence. (Infinite)

Now I don’t want an exhaustive discussion on these, but perhaps examples of a type of product and where it goes and why could help.

Say I want to publish third party rules for PF2R, with no setting IP. Is that PCL? So I just make “The Rules Interpreter” class, a 3PP class for PF2R and slap a PCL on the front and the licence in the back?

If it does contain Golariona/IP does it then *have* to be Infinite? With Inifinite on the front, and the Infinite licence in the back? And Infinite is only sold at DriveThruRPG not here from the Paizo website? And must not be sold elsewhere?

If I make a whole new RPG, that uses the ORC SRD, then that is ORC, and not needing PCL nor Infinite (as it is neither Pathfinder, nor IP.

But if this new RPG that uses the ORC SRD, but is set in Golarion, is it ORC and Infinite and thus bound by both?

Forgive me if I have the ORC misconstrued as more of an SRD than a licence.

You can reference the horde lich, GameMastery Guide NPCs, and sahkils, for sure. You can even use more specific references to them via a micro stat block or give tactics advice for running them, referring to specific abilities (with a few exceptions, but mostly). You can reprint their stat blocks in their entirety with a few modifications, like removing alignment and any spell or feat that we didn't reprint in the Remaster or that uses another company's IP.

Oh yeah, I very much assumed that "de-OGL-ifying" things would have just come with the work of the conversion. I was just wondering if I even COULD, say, tell my buyers to read through AP#100 so that they would have the story context. Like, I was just wondering if I could put something like, say "The First Warden is a horde lich (Book of the Dead pg. 121)" or "The blue-scaled Rivozair is a diabolic dragon (Monster Core pg. XXX) with the hellbound creature template (Bestiary 3 pg. 64)"

(Also including a hyperlink to AoN)

I was wondering if I could still DO that without needing to license it under the OGL, because I'd still be referencing OGL books for the statblocks, for example.

then you can get around a lot of this by just using proper nouns and using a Paizo-owned term like nephilim or caliban or hellspawn if you need to refer to Strea's heritage.

Side note: you keep saying "caliban." That's...not a word I've seen anywhere else in Paizo's material. I thought the new term for "fiend-blooded nephilim" was "cambion."

Ok, thanks Mark. That is helpful. However, I think I’m confused a little about the interactions or functions/properties of the following:

* The OGL
* The ORC
* The Pathfinder Compatibility Licence/Starfinder Combatibility Licence (PCL/SCL)
* Community Use Policy (CUP)
* Infinite Licence. (Infinite)

Now I don’t want an exhaustive discussion on these, but perhaps examples of a type of product and where it goes and why could help.

One of the top tasks on my (and a few others, but mostly my) to-do lists is to put together a landing page for all these licenses to help people make heads or tales of which one does what they're looking for. I aim to have it include a graphic representation in either the form of a flow chart or a table to answer just this sort of comparison question. In the meantime, and because I'm here anyway, let me address these.

Say I want to publish third party rules for PF2R, with no setting IP. Is that PCL? So I just make “The Rules Interpreter” class, a 3PP class for PF2R and slap a PCL on the front and the licence in the back?

At minimum it's got to have either the OGL or ORC, because you're reprinting or making works derivative of Paizo's copyrighted rules expressions. It's PCL if you want to put the Pathfinder Compatible logo on the cover and refer to our trademarks (like "Pathfinder" or the titles of some of our books).

If it does contain Golariona/IP does it then *have* to be Infinite? With Inifinite on the front, and the Infinite licence in the back? And Infinite is only sold at DriveThruRPG not here from the Paizo website? And must not be sold elsewhere?

If you're selling it and includes Golarion or other non-open IP, then yes, it's gotta be on Infinite, with the Infinite logo on the front and the specific legal text outlined in the Infinite license either at the back or on your title page. It can only be sold on the Pathfinder Infinite marketplace hosted by DriveThruRPG and not on paizo.com or elsewhere.

If I make a whole new RPG, that uses the ORC SRD, then that is ORC, and not needing PCL nor Infinite (as it is neither Pathfinder, nor IP.

If you are making a whole new RPG, you likely don't need to include the ORC in order to use someone else's rules expressions, as it's a brand new creation you own. You can still choose to use the ORC so others can use your copyrighted game in their own products. You are correct that it's neither Pathfinder nor based around our IP, so it's not going to use either the PCL or Infinite license.

But if this new RPG that uses the ORC SRD, but is set in Golarion, is it ORC and Infinite and thus bound by both?

See above re: the ORC SRD. The Infinite license requires your product be compatible with Pathfinder, Starfinder, or contain no rules, so if you made the OceanShieldWolf RPG that was a completely different game that used a dreidel instead of dice or whatever, that wouldn't meet those standards and you could neither use Golarion lore nor release the game on Infinite.

Forgive me if I have the ORC misconstrued as more of an SRD than a licence.

You are forgiven.

But no, the ORC is just the license. It contains no rules in and of itself. The ORC can just as easily be used to open up content from Pathfinder Second Edition (like we're doing with the Remaster books) as it could the proposed dreidel game you are now obligated to make by my decree. In the case of both the Remaster and OceanShieldWolf RPG, the ORC would be an outflowing license rather than a pass-through license, as it's just opening the Licensed Material within each game to other publishers; neither is using the license to publish content previously created and released by a different company.

I don't think my ADHD can handle publishing anything more on PFI now. I'm so confused, and I can't afford to pay someone else to figure it out for me on each product.

I feel the Infinite community seems pretty friendly and could help you out - perhaps reach out to some of the bigger publishers and/or try the Third Party Publishers forum here.

Apart from that, I can see a fairly simple flowchart might help folx out…

I was wondering if I could still DO that without needing to license it under the OGL, because I'd still be referencing OGL books for the statblocks, for example.

The OGL is just one license that allows other parties to use Paizo's IP. In the case of the proposed text, Paizo owns everything you mentioned, so it's already covered by the Infinite license. While other folks doing other OGL products can also

Side note: you keep saying "caliban." That's...not a word I've seen anywhere else in Paizo's material. I thought the new term for "fiend-blooded nephilim" was "cambion."

Look, I just typed the equivalent word count of a Pathfinder Society Scenario across all these forum posts, and you're going to correctly call me out for using the wrong word? How dare?! I meant "cambion," obviously, but decades of reading X-Men comics and my 12th-grade Shakespeare teacher made me say "caliban" instead. This is what I get for trying to remember anything these days.

I will make sure that gets corrected anywhere that text can be altered indefinitely, unlike the Paizo forums, where my mistake will live forever to be mocked by people who double-check terms before using them in authoritative FAQ answers.

Is there any word on Community Use Policy updates? Back in June, you said:

The shift to the ORC license will also necessitate a change to our Compatibility License and Community Use Policy. We’ll have those available for public comment soon, and final versions will be released before the new Remaster books come out in November.

Look, I just typed the equivalent word count of a Pathfinder Society Scenario across all these forum posts, and you're going to correctly call me out for using the wrong word? How dare?! I meant "cambion," obviously, but decades of reading X-Men comics and my 12th-grade Shakespeare teacher made me say "caliban" instead. This is what I get for trying to remember anything these days.

Sorry...Didn't mean to offend, I was just genuinely confused.

Thank you for answering my other questions, though. That was very helpful!

One last thing, because it's not fully clear to me: will Infinite creators have to put the ORC legalese stuff at the end of our documents like we did with the OGL?

Is there any word on Community Use Policy updates? Back in June, you said:

Jim Butler wrote:

The shift to the ORC license will also necessitate a change to our Compatibility License and Community Use Policy. We’ll have those available for public comment soon, and final versions will be released before the new Remaster books come out in November.

I don't know that we'll end up doing a public comment period on it, because it did take longer to revise than we anticipated. I just got a near final draft from our attorney today, so we're likely close. There are still a number of approvals the policy needs to go through internally, and we are going to roll it out at the same time as the license landing page I mentioned upthread.

So I anticipate we'll have it out before the end of the year, but more likely in mid-to-late December than this month or immediately after the Thanksgiving holiday.

Sorry...Didn't mean to offend, I was just genuinely confused.

Thank you for answering my other questions, though. That was very helpful!

One last thing, because it's not fully clear to me: will Infinite creators have to put the ORC legalese stuff at the end of our documents like we did with the OGL?

No offense. I thought I was being funny by feigning offense, but I guess the internet it gonna internet, so tone might as well not exist. Thanks for pointing it out! As embarrassing as it is, I'd rather fix it tomorrow morning than have it out there for everyone to see for months.

No ORC legalese will be required on Infinite releases, because we're not allowing Infinite releases to use the ORC. You can just use the standard Infinite boilerplate for non-OGL releases, as detailed in both the EULA and on the FAQ. And, heck, reprinted below, because why not?

Paizo is still committed to open gaming, which is why we championed and funded the creation of the ORC. It's why we release our non-OGL game books under the ORC. It's why we go above and beyond the OGL and ORC to offer the Pathfinder and Starfinder Compatibility Licenses to allow people supporting our games and open gaming to use even more of our IP in their releases. And it's why we created Pathfinder Infinite to allow access to even more of our IP, but in exchange for a stricter set of distribution conditions. Publishers are free to use whichever of the various free licenses they feel meets their needs the best.

This goes beyond Infinite, this is a community issue and a Paizo issue. Is Paizo not confident that the ORC protects their content? Because thats what it looks like. This decision doesn't just affect Infinite, it affects the community and the 3rd party ecosystem.

Then, lets go a step further. Paizo survives as a company today because of open mechanical content. The OGL allowed Paizo to survive and eventually thrive when 4e/GPL, A CLOSED SYSTEM, threatened their existence. Until now Infinite has been a happy part of the open ecosystem, now you want to make new content on there CLOSED and this all looks like a step toward WOTC, forgetting where you came from and what got you here.

And all for... what? To prevent edge cases, when this move doesn't even really do that (these same edge cases can happen whether you use ORC or not) and causes more issues and community disharmony than any good that it does for Paizo. You want to blow up the bridge when you could just put up a sign telling people how best to cross it. You've drawn the line at the wrong place when its very simple, if you are worried about the streams crossing, draw the line there: if the Infinite product uses OGL material, use OGL; if the Infinite product uses ORC material, use ORC; and the two can never ever cross or mix. Thats where you draw the line and its a whole lot easier than splitting the whole ecosystem and going CLOSED on mechanics like current day WOTC and creating a bigger headache for everyone to navigate.

Please reconsider, I don't know how well thought out this is, but I can't imagine this has been thought through to whether its truly necessary when compared to the cost to community goodwill and the health of the ecosystem as a whole. This is about more than just Infinite, its about the entire ecosystem. The Remaster is already causing a lot of upheaval and uncertainty and confusion (whether you are positive or negative on the remaster, it is doing these things), lets not compound the issues, lets not introduce more uncertainty and doubt into the player and creator communities without reasons that stand up to scrutiny, lets not split the open mechanics in the community unnecessarily.

It's PCL if you want to put the Pathfinder Compatible logo on the cover and refer to our trademarks (like "Pathfinder" or the titles of some of our books).

I do want to correct this part, so that people are not misled. You are correct that the PCL is necessary to use the official Pathfinder Compatible logo, as Paizo maintains copyright/trademark on that logo.

The ONLY reason this could not and still cannot be done for OGL products is that it explicitly forbids it, you essentially give up your default right to do so in exchange for the right to use the OGL and its benefits.

Mark Moreland wrote:

Paizo is still committed to open gaming, which is why we championed and funded the creation of the ORC. It's why we release our non-OGL game books under the ORC. It's why we go above and beyond the OGL and ORC to offer the Pathfinder and Starfinder Compatibility Licenses to allow people supporting our games and open gaming to use even more of our IP in their releases. And it's why we created Pathfinder Infinite to allow access to even more of our IP, but in exchange for a stricter set of distribution conditions. Publishers are free to use whichever of the various free licenses they feel meets their needs the best.

This goes beyond Infinite, this is a community issue and a Paizo issue. Is Paizo not confident that the ORC protects their content? Because thats what it looks like. This decision doesn't just affect Infinite, it affects the community and the 3rd party ecosystem.

The ORC is about trusting that we are all operating under the same rules and that we are all equally protected by them. This sets up scenarios where non-Infinite users are unprotected from Infinite users and perhaps vice versa. If Infinite users use ORC content from a 3pp, now its up to that person to have to sue the Infinite creator because you must protect your copyright or risk losing it, whereas if the Infinite creator were using ORC, then thats all fine.
Or a 3pp publishes something similar to an Infinite product, even by accident, which is not even remotely unusual since theres like ten Inquisitor classes across Infinite and DTRPG. Now the Infinite creator has rights to bring lawsuit against the 3pp publisher, but if Infinite used ORC, the 3pp would be properly protected, just like Paizo basically promised with the ORC.
Thats part of the problem, a breach of trust. The ORC is supposed to protect all of us and you want to split the community and remove that protection now.

Then, lets go a step further. Paizo survives as a company today because of open mechanical content. The OGL allowed Paizo to...

You seem to not understand. The Infinite license is a license that allows you to publish using Paizo-owned things on Infinite, including their rule expressions and settings. The ORC is a license that permits you to reproduce rules material that is also in the ORC. They do two different things in different spaces.

Also, I'm not sure what you're talking about with lawsuits. Someone who's dumb enough and bad enough at IP law to sue someone over a vaguely-similar phrasing released under a different license is someone who's going to walk facefirst in to getting blacklisted by the broader RPG community and never get anyone to buy their stuff again. You are spending a lot of time doomsaying about a situation with like a .00000001% chance of happening. Were you planning on doing this or something? Yo ushould probably reconsider.

I don't think my ADHD can handle publishing anything more on PFI now. I'm so confused, and I can't afford to pay someone else to figure it out for me on each product.

I know it can be overwhelming. If there are specific questions that you have, about process or licenses or Infinite in general, ask 'em and we can try to address them in next Tuesday's Q&A stream. I know (as a fellow superhero with ADHD origin story) that text-based explanations don't always work as well as spoken word (which I am sure you can totally believe given the walls of text I have subjected everyone to in this thread) so maybe that will help? Anyway, there's a great community of other creators out there who are generally really helpful, and more experienced folk can certainly walk you through some of the intricacies of the licensing element of RPG publishing, or double-check your work before you release it to make sure you didn't miss something. I hope you're able to connect with them.

(various things in reply to my earlier comment)

I appreciate you taking the time to so thoroughly reply to my comments. I feel the end result is unfortunate, and I can't see myself ever publishing on Infinite if I'm unable to at least also release the mechanical content (stripped of anything based on Lost Omens lore, which would naturally be Infinite-specific) separately under the ORC. But I do understand the reasoning, in particular about how third-party authors may struggle to disentangle OGL content from Paizo content (especially in places where lore content is actually drawn from the OGL) or might accidentally mix licenses - and I see also how that concern for Paizo from a legal perspective would likely be amplified on a platform that's directly supported by Paizo. I hope that in the (hopefully distant) future when Pathfinder 3E becomes a thing, and the OGL and any significant concerns about the risk of mixed content are long in the past, then the consistent use of the ORC or a similar license will be able to cover game mechanics and rules elements regardless of what platform they happen to be published on.

Thank you for your answers to my and others' comments and questions in this thread; in situations like this, the Paizo team always does a spectacular job providing insight into the 'whys' behind the decisions.

@Mark Moreland: thanks so much for actually taking the time to go through my post and answer each question. While I’m still a little confused about a few things, I’m happy enough with what you’ve provided and my own apparent understanding thereof.

And I had the thought about the flowchart for *at least* fifteen minutes before I posted it. Promise.

Again: thank you. It all seems pretty reasonable to me.

I still think Infinite is super weird, and super-er weird that I can’t buy Infinite here on the Paizo site.

I have some clarifying questions for you Mark, if you'd be so kind.

If I want to create content using the ORC license outside the Pathfinder Infinite program, and later wish to reference said content in a Pathfinder Infinite product, can I do so?

To be clear, I am talking about content wholly created and owned by me. For example, let's say I create an Ancestry that is compatible with the Pathfinder Second Edition system but makes no reference to the Lost Omens IP and release it under the ORC License.

If I later wish to publish an adventure on Pathfinder Infinite, to what degree if any can I reference my non-Infinite ancestry?

Can I suggest the Ancestry as a good option for PCs in the adventure?

Can I include NPCs in the adventure of the Ancestry?

Can I include a gazetteer detailing the Ancestry in the context of the Lost Omens setting without reproducing text from the original product?

Could the adventure center around the Ancestry and its place on Golarion?

Can I create new Ancestry Feats for the Ancestry in the context of Lost Omens as part of the Infinite product?

Can I reproduce parts the original product in the adventure?

Can I reproduce the ancestry as a whole in the adventure, or include a code for the non-Infinite product as part of the sale of the adventure on the Infinite platform?

If the answer to any of the above questions is "no," is it true that the answer would have been yes if the original product had used the OGL?

If that's the case, isn't it true that these constitute new limitations for creators hoping to make use of the Infinite program and the ORC license going forward?

Is it further true that for creators that wish to keep these options open, the OGL remains a better option for them as long as they don't make use of any content Paizo hasn't released under the OGL?

I sincerely hope I'm misunderstanding and that at least for creators that wish to cross reference their own material in both eco-systems, this remains possible. To some degree, I understand these limitations with regards to other creators, but I hope it is possible for creators to use their own work in this way given that their consent to do so is implicit in the doing.

Either way, thanks for your time and insight.

So if I ever want to finish that dire corby pf2e bestiary thing I made stats for but then kinda run out of steam since I was like "how the hell I would edit it and graphic design it" based on pf1e misfit monsters redeemed, would that be infinite license or ogl?

Here is a hypothetical. I write a small novel of one of my PFS characters (his Grandfather or possibly his grandson). He is flitting back and forth through time, getting to see pivitol moments in Golarian history, and even visits the Starfinder Absalom station in space.

I put it on Infinate, and Paizo likes it so much, they might want to publish it themselves.

How does that change the ORC considerations?

"In fact, as of the publication of this FAQ, you are expressly prohibited from releasing any content in your Pathfinder Infinite or Starfinder Infinite product as Licensed Material under the ORC."

Um, that's pretty seriously BAD. I knew Pathfinder Infinite was a bad thing and would lead to worse down the road -- and this 100% confirms it. Glad I've done no browsing there at all. Embrace a gosh-darned open system -- the very thing that allowed Paizo to exist in the first place. Trying to become like those Seaside Mages that live just down the road, are you?

Otherwise, I hope people properly abandon Infinite and release things ORC themselves. Or better yet, people return to just posting things free on the Internet for the joy of it without attempting to micro-monetize/turn their hobby into a side-gig.

Here is a hypothetical. I write a small novel of one of my PFS characters (his Grandfather or possibly his grandson). He is flitting back and forth through time, getting to see pivitol moments in Golarian history, and even visits the Starfinder Absalom station in space.

I put it on Infinate, and Paizo likes it so much, they might want to publish it themselves.

How does that change the ORC considerations?

I am now looking forward to seeing this on Infinite :D

"In fact, as of the publication of this FAQ, you are expressly prohibited from releasing any content in your Pathfinder Infinite or Starfinder Infinite product as Licensed Material under the ORC."

Um, that's pretty seriously BAD. I knew Pathfinder Infinite was a bad thing and would lead to worse down the road -- and this 100% confirms it. Glad I've done no browsing there at all. Embrace a gosh-darned open system -- the very thing that allowed Paizo to exist in the first place. Trying to become like those Seaside Mages that live just down the road, are you?

Otherwise, I hope people properly abandon Infinite and release things ORC themselves. Or better yet, people return to just posting things free on the Internet for the joy of it without attempting to micro-monetize/turn their hobby into a side-gig.

I would appreciate it if you do not imply that the work people done is not ... well work. A great many of the products on Pathfinder Infinite are equal to Paizo quality. And being done by folks individually without the support of a whole company of experts specializing. Though speaking of there are Paizo freelancers, heck there are Paizo employees, are you suggesting what they have producing is not worthy of compensation?

Just because it's something one enjoys, it doesn't mean one doesn't deserve compensation for the work. If you feel that presenting new rules, new character options, new adventures, new NPCs, and the whole host of options on Pathfinder Infinite or Pathfinder Compatible Products could be considered micro-monetization... then I'm not sure this is the thread for you anyway.

It sounds like the only way to publish open content (mechanics) in Pathfinder Infinite is now by referencing the OGL and making sure to include some OGC.

While I understand the reasoning, this is a terrible look.

If you do want to avoid crossing the streams, I strongly recommend starting a second digital storefront for ORC titles. Otherwise the headlines just write themselves: "Paizo prohibits 3rd party publishers from using ORC license in its storefront." "Only way to publish open content in Pathfinder Infinite is by using the OGL."

It sounds like the only way to publish open content (mechanics) in Pathfinder Infinite is now by referencing the OGL and making sure to include some OGC.

While I understand the reasoning, this is a terrible look.

If you do want to avoid crossing the streams, I strongly recommend starting a second digital storefront for ORC titles. Otherwise the headlines just write themselves: "Paizo prohibits 3rd party publishers from using ORC license in its storefront." "Only way to publish open content in Pathfinder Infinite is by using the OGL."

Infinite content is already on separate storefronts on DrivethroughRPG from other Paizo-related third-party content.

https://www.pathfinderinfinite.com/
https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/browse?ruleSystem=100193

Infinite content is already on separate storefronts on DrivethroughRPG from other Paizo-related third-party content.

That's true. But DTRPG is not run by or affiliated with paizo, other than the fact that you can sell Pf2e compatible products on there. I could publish PF2e compatible ORC content on itch.io, or host it on my personal website too.

So I'm not saying that there is no other place than Infinite to sell ORC content.

The argument that I'm making is about public relations.

If Paizo doesn't use the ORC license in Infinite in the same way that it is currently using the OGL, it makes it look like:

- Paizo is not committed to open gaming (since their own store front is going from "open mechanics" to "closed mechanics").

- There is some flaw in the ORC license that makes even Paizo (the people that spearheaded its creation) afraid of using it, while they continue to allow the OGL.

While I hope those aren't the actual reasons for this announcement, that's what it looks like.

Paizo is committed to open gaming. There is no flaw in the ORC license.

So if I ever want to finish that dire corby pf2e bestiary thing I made stats for but then kinda run out of steam since I was like "how the hell I would edit it and graphic design it" based on pf1e misfit monsters redeemed, would that be infinite license or ogl?

The dire corby is an extra deep Open Game Content cut, as it originated in the first Fiend Folio, and was released under the OGL back in the Tome of Horrors, when Wizards gave Clark Peterson and crew permission to do OGL versions of FF monsters, because they thought they were never going to use them in official products. That's why the dire corby, among other ToH creatures, requires a specific callout in the OGL Section 15, whereas something that was in the SRD doesn't.

So, yeah, if you want to do anything with dire corbies, you'll need to do so under the OGL. We didn't change the Infinite license to restrict OGL content, so you can release your proposed book either on Infinite (using the OGL and the specified language for OGL products as outlined in the EULA and FAQ) or as an independent product, so long as the latter didn't include any Paizo-owned Product Identity that would require the Infinite license to use.

I have some clarifying questions for you Mark, if you'd be so kind.

There's a lot to unpack here, so I'm going to try to consolidate these and similar questions into one or two basic questions to address in next week's live stream.

Ultimately, the conflicting nature of the OGL and ORC's share-alike requirement and Infinite's exclusivity agreement is part of why we have opted to keep the ORC and Infinite licenses separate.

But this question has come up in various forms across a number of channels, so I'll be sure to put together the best answer for it I can in the next week.

Here is a hypothetical. I write a small novel of one of my PFS characters (his Grandfather or possibly his grandson). He is flitting back and forth through time, getting to see pivitol moments in Golarian history, and even visits the Starfinder Absalom station in space.

I put it on Infinate, and Paizo likes it so much, they might want to publish it themselves.

How does that change the ORC considerations?

The ORC was never going to be a factor in fiction, as you're dealing exclusively with Reserved Material (or Product Identity, if we're talking in terms of the OGL). You can publish that novel on Infinite without need of another license, but you will need to make sure that you aren't including flavor elements that are Open Game Content, like the names of some planes or languages, creature or spell names, etc. This is why in Pathfinder Tales novels, we referred to Radovan solely as a hellspawn, and never a tiefling; those novels were not OGL releases, so we didn't have access to Wizards' IP in them.

In the unlikely event Paizo were ever to take any unofficial content from Infinite and publish it ourselves, we would make a good faith effort to buy that copyright from you outright before doing so, which would be a completely different contract between you and Paizo than the Infinite license itself.

It sounds like the only way to publish open content (mechanics) in Pathfinder Infinite is now by referencing the OGL and making sure to include some OGC.

While I understand the reasoning, this is a terrible look.

If you do want to avoid crossing the streams, I strongly recommend starting a second digital storefront for ORC titles. Otherwise the headlines just write themselves: "Paizo prohibits 3rd party publishers from using ORC license in its storefront." "Only way to publish open content in Pathfinder Infinite is by using the OGL."

You can publish mechanics on Infinite with the Infinite license itself, so long as those mechanics are owned by Paizo or another Infinite creator. You don't need the OGL or ORC to do that.

Non-Infinite publishers using the Compatibility License or just the raw OGL or ORC can already sell their products wherever they want, including both paizo.com and DriveThruRPG. I'm not sure there's a need to set up another storefront for this sort of thing, since we don't need such a storefront to serve as a walled garden the way Infinite does.

But both of the headlines you mention write themselves because they're accurate. I'd personally change the first to, "Paizo prohibits 3rd party publishers from using ORC license in its IP-based storefront," or similar to clarify that there are other storefronts where people can use the ORC, just not the one intrinsically tied to the very content we define as Reserved Material under that license.

CorvusMask wrote:

So if I ever want to finish that dire corby pf2e bestiary thing I made stats for but then kinda run out of steam since I was like "how the hell I would edit it and graphic design it" based on pf1e misfit monsters redeemed, would that be infinite license or ogl?

The dire corby is an extra deep Open Game Content cut, as it originated in the first Fiend Folio, and was released under the OGL back in the Tome of Horrors, when Wizards gave Clark Peterson and crew permission to do OGL versions of FF monsters, because they thought they were never going to use them in official products. That's why the dire corby, among other ToH creatures, requires a specific callout in the OGL Section 15, whereas something that was in the SRD doesn't.

So, yeah, if you want to do anything with dire corbies, you'll need to do so under the OGL. We didn't change the Infinite license to restrict OGL content, so you can release your proposed book either on Infinite (using the OGL and the specified language for OGL products as outlined in the EULA and FAQ) or as an independent product, so long as the latter didn't include any Paizo-owned Product Identity that would require the Infinite license to use.

That's nice to know ya, thank you for answering :O Means infinite is still an option, especially since its technically pf1e lore version of them rather than D&D one(D&D one is kinda boring tbh)

I mean there was always the option of "call them something else", but I think half the appeal of hypothetical product would be "some guy was crazy enough to expand dire corbies a lot" x'D Dunno what you could even reflavor them as. "Doomers"? ;P

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

If I make a whole new RPG, that uses the ORC SRD, then that is ORC, and not needing PCL nor Infinite (as it is neither Pathfinder, nor IP.

If you are making a whole new RPG, you likely don't need to include the ORC in order to use someone else's rules expressions, as it's a brand new creation you own. You can still choose to use the ORC so others can use your copyrighted game in their own products. You are correct that it's neither Pathfinder nor based around our IP, so it's not going to use either the PCL or Infinite license.

I think there's a typo or miss-wording in there Mark. :)

If somebody is using another's rules expression (via the ORC), and not re-wording them to be able to use just the mechanics then your product can only use them via the ORC (or a separate license with the original author). Which means that your product itself has to be licensed under the ORC. :)

If Paizo doesn't use the ORC license in Infinite in the same way that it is currently using the OGL, it makes it look like:

- Paizo is not committed to open gaming (since their own store front is going from "open mechanics" to "closed mechanics").

- There is some flaw in the ORC license that makes even Paizo (the people that spearheaded its creation) afraid of using it, while they continue to allow the OGL.

While I hope those aren't the actual reasons for this announcement, that's what it looks like.

We have no plans to abandon open gaming, and are actively working to transition all our product lines (not just the rulebook line) to the ORC. The rules in those books will always be open via the ORC.

There's no flaw in the ORC that's precipitating this decision. If licensing were a highway, the ORC and Infinite license are two different lanes to the same destination. We don't feel it's safe to drive in more lane than once (using "safe" here as part of the metaphor, not because there's some inherent danger inherent in the ORC or Infinite licenses themselves.)

Paizo is committed to open gaming. There is no flaw in the ORC license.

I belieeeeve! In my heart of hearts, I believe it to be true. But it is a deeply uncomfortable experience to have one's faith be tested.

And it puts me in a dilemma, as a Pathfinder Infinite creator. I have a class published on there under the OGL. I want its mechanics to stay open, but I also want to publish a revision that is compatible with the remaster (with OGC content removed) - preferably giving the revision away for free to everyone who has already bought the first version.

With this announcement, I believe there's no way to do that while keeping the mechanics open to use in 3rd party ORC products.

Please, Paizo, show me that my faith is not in vain.

Mark Moreland wrote:

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

If I make a whole new RPG, that uses the ORC SRD, then that is ORC, and not needing PCL nor Infinite (as it is neither Pathfinder, nor IP.

If you are making a whole new RPG, you likely don't need to include the ORC in order to use someone else's rules expressions, as it's a brand new creation you own.

I think there's a typo or miss-wording in there Mark. :)

If somebody is using another's rules expression (via the ORC), and not re-wording them to be able to use just the mechanics then your product can only use them via the ORC (or a separate license with the original author). Which means that your product itself has to be licensed under the ORC. :)

Sorry, I wrote a lot of words yesterday and this could have been clearer.

You do need to include the ORC in your product if you want to reprint someone else's copyrighted rules expressions that are Licensed Material, but since the example was for a unique, original game system that was derivative of someone else's copyrights, you wouldn't have to do so. You could still choose to do so if you wanted to share it downstream, but if there's no Licensed Material flowing into your product, there's no obligation to release anything under the ORC.