New and Revised Licenses

DMurnett wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Again, folk *can* still make Starfinder 1E products, just not with Paizo proper names.

Sincerely: What the hell does that even mean? It's hard to appreciate how much of Starfinder is Paizo-owned proper nouns. I myself didn't get the full picture until I started reading the 2e playtest document. Can you still call the core race of warlike lizard aliens Vesks? Can you refer to a Solarian? What about other crucial game mechanics like Drift Engines?

"Vesk" and "solarian" are not proper nouns any more than "human" and "wizard" are. Both are available as Open Game Content under the OGL and now as Licensed Material under the ORC. "Drift" remains off-limits, because it's a place as much as Absalom Station is, but you can use "hyperspace" as a replacement, just as we provided as guidance in our OGL Product Identity declarations for the duration of Starfinder First Edition.

And "precog" is just as much Open Game Content as it ever was.

For those of us who aren't lawyers, why exactly are "Vesk" and "solarian" allowed when "Drift" isn't?

My reading of the ORC License does not lead me to believe that such names (and any flavourful aspects beyond the stat block) are defined as Licensed Material. If they were, it would cover ALL names, not just the ones you want it to, because that's how Licensed Material is defined (§I e (2)). The only carve-out there is for Third Party Reserved Material.

For those of us who aren't lawyers, why exactly are "Vesk" and "solarian" allowed when "Drift" isn't?

The latter is more or a less a unique specific thing whereas Vesk are not and Solarion is a grouping of mechanics, if I were to guess.

My reading of the ORC License does not lead me to believe that such names (and any flavourful aspects beyond the stat block) are defined as Licensed Material. If they were, it would cover ALL names, not just the ones you want it to, because that's how Licensed Material is defined (§I e (2)). The only carve-out there is for Third Party Reserved Material.

Notably, section e.i. covers material related to the creation and play of player and non-player characters, but in the list of no less than 17 examples of these mechanics (which include class, job, stats, basically every other char creation thing you can think of) there is no mention of Ancestry/species/race/lineage/etc. If ancestry names are intended to be covered, it’s a glaring omission that makes me uneasy about using them.

For those of us who aren't lawyers, why exactly are "Vesk" and "solarian" allowed when "Drift" isn't?

They're allowed while "Drift" isn't because the Drift is a specific place in the setting. "Vesk" is not a proper noun, any more than "elf" is.

When the name of a stat block is a proper noun, that name is Reserved Material. When the name of a stat block (or other rules element like a class) is not a proper noun, that name is Licensed Material.

This is largely why we created "OGL-safe" names for all the ancestries in Starfinder when the game launched. "Brethedan" became "barathu," "Eoxian" became "elebrian," and so forth.

Maurizio Liparesi wrote:

Do the international non english language people deserve the same service granted to english speaking user by aon?

There is a possibility to negotiate the same license granted to aon for international srd?

We want people to be able to play our games in whatever language they want, and if tools like Archives of Nethys in other languages would make that easier for people to do, we encourage that. As I've said before, we're reviewing our options in providing support for international communities.

Anyone can contact our licensing department and inquire about establishing a commercial license. See the "Commercial Licenses" section at the bottom of the Paizo Licenses page for more information on what we look for in commercial partners.

And, again, please be patient with us as we gather information to share, which includes more for international community projects that operated under the CUP.

Thank you Mark i've wrote to your licensing mail as you suggested

Terminalmancer wrote:

Two questions from a PF1/SF1 grognard:

First, I have some organized play references I've made for Pathfinder 1e that exist on a website that may or may not be changing form. The website's made use of the CUP so far in a way that means I don't ever have to worry about what I'm doing so long as I'm not charging for it.

Since the site may be changing form significantly or migrating some of those references to another site for long-term archival storage, what happens? ... Is that really what's intended here?

We're going to be adding FAQ information to clarify what existing CUP sites that may need maintenance or other technical updates that don't fundamentally change the content or functionality need to do to be compliant with the FCP.

Terminalmancer wrote:

If I put those up on a website for everyone in my little home group to read, am I running afoul of the updated rules?

Home group play is covered under personal use and isn't really something this policy is intended to govern.

I appreciate the clarification, and I will check back in after the FAQ is updated.

IANAL (seriously, definitely not a lawyer), but just to clarify:

My point of concern with this response is that in my experience, personal use has generally been construed to mean "not in public where other people can get it" and posting things on the internet has been seen as "publishing" them.

I think "product" and especially "publish" mean a thing in the RPG publishing industry context that is different than the legal context and I'm nervous about the collision of those two worlds in the language of the policy and its FAQ.

On the bright side, it's a policy and not a license! So at least the text of the policy doesn't have to be 100% perfect so long as you enforce it the way you're describing...

What is a proper noun?

A proper noun is a noun that serves as the name for a specific place, person, or thing. To distinguish them from common nouns, proper nouns are always capitalized in English. Proper nouns include personal names, place names, names of companies and organizations, and the titles of books, films, songs, and other media.

So, a proper noun is the name of a specific "entity". A concrete thing. An ancestry or class is not a specific entity, thus their names are common nouns, and are thus licenced material.

Unhappy to see moderation (silently) deleting criticism in this thread. I guess I should stop caring about Paizo's success entirely. This is becoming a zero-trust environment. I'm out.

I still see plenty of criticism in the thread?

I still see plenty of criticism in the thread?

Point at timestamps to see the post #s. You'll see gaps. One of them was a previously reply of mine (finishing up the Chopper's Isle sub-thread).

Thanks for taking the time to answer questions in here, Mark!

I have a couple projects I am hoping to get on Infinite this fall.

Cori Marie wrote:

I still see plenty of criticism in the thread?

Point at timestamps to see the post #s. You'll see gaps. One of them was a previously reply of mine (finishing up the Chopper's Isle sub-thread).

Then maybe cool it on slinging insults at Paizo’s staff? I am 100% sure that’s what got your post deleted, not your criticism of their policy choices.

Then maybe cool it on slinging insults at Paizo’s staff? I am 100% sure that’s what got your post deleted, not your criticism of their policy choices.

There was no such thing and it's a little hurtful that you would make such an insinuation. This thread's a super important topic with Paizo staff present; why would one do such a thing? But, please, do go ahead and jump to such conclusions if it makes you feel better about the world.

FallenDabus wrote:

Then maybe cool it on slinging insults at Paizo’s staff? I am 100% sure that’s what got your post deleted, not your criticism of their policy choices.

There was no such thing and it's a little hurtful that you would make such an insinuation. This thread's a super important topic with Paizo staff present; why would one do such a thing? But, please, do go ahead and jump to such conclusions if it makes you feel better about the world.

You said they were pathologically obsessed with with everything being on PFI. You may not see that as an insult. My immediate reaction reading that was that it crossed a line, despite agree that there should be space for free fan works to not be on Infinite.

If you are hurt and disagree with that interpretation, I cannot control that. But to me, that absolutely was an insult. And in light of that interpretation, entirely counter productive to your stated goal of convincing Paizo to change directions.

I have as well for PCGen, back on July 26th. :)

According to a new Hephaistos update, rather than amend the policy they’re simply trying to make Hephaistos a commercial partner. To quote the creator:

“To be honest, I still wish that a special license wasn't needed. I was perfectly happy with the provisions and restrictions of the CUP, and I can't help wonder how many other creators will have this privilege extended to them.”

In other words, the fundamental issues with this new policy aren’t being addressed in the least.

Paizo owes the CUP everything. They often say how PF2E’s success saved the company, but the tools created under CUP are what saved PF2E from failing amidst the pandemic. And in the future, no new ones can be created.

Mark, why was it revoked with 0 days notice and no community feedback? Why destroy the policy that originally birthed so many pillars of your business like AoN or the PF2E foundry system?

Paizo owes the CUP everything. They often say how PF2E’s success saved the company, but the tools created under CUP are what saved PF2E from failing amidst the pandemic. And in the future, no new ones can be created.

(end of quote. quoting doesn't work)

Both Paizo and the community have gained much from these tools and the policies that allowed them to exist. For example PF2e on Foundry is easily the best digital RPG experience in existence. And it cost Paizo (as far as I'm aware) nothing.

Walking these policies back is inexplicable to me. It made me look up the opposite of "future-proofing" and it seems that doesn't even exist.

So ... why? I've read speculations and none of them look good. Until today, I thought it was just a mistake. But now it's clear that wasn't the case.

It made me look up the opposite of "future-proofing" and it seems that doesn't even exist.

"Planned Obsolescence" is probably the term you are looking for.

Paizo owes the CUP everything. They often say how PF2E’s success saved the company, but the tools created under CUP are what saved PF2E from failing amidst the pandemic. And in the future, no new ones can be created.

That is a very bold claim.

Were these programs helpful to those who used them? Yes, but i think you’re vastly overestimating how many people used them, or that they were required to play.

Spreading this sort of impassioned hyperbole doesn’t really help anyone.

Peacelock wrote:

Paizo owes the CUP everything. They often say how PF2E’s success saved the company, but the tools created under CUP are what saved PF2E from failing amidst the pandemic. And in the future, no new ones can be created.

That is a very bold claim.

Were these programs helpful to those who used them? Yes, but i think you’re vastly overestimating how many people used them, or that they were required to play.

Spreading this sort of impassioned hyperbole doesn’t really help anyone.

Archives of Nethys, PF2E on Foundry, PF2Easy, PF2Etools, the disability tools and fan translations mentioned in this very thread, conversions of 1E adventures to 2E, and much, much, more. Every single one of these was originally created under the CUP and many of them still are under it. I do not think it’s hyperbole to say that without them, countless people would never have adopted PF2E, especially during the pandemic.

Edit: To be clear, some of these like AoN and the foundry system were later given commercial licenses, but without CUP they’d never have existed to begin with. This change pulls up the proverbial ladder and prevents the creation of similar future tools the community will someday need.

You made the claim that Paizo would have outright failed without these. That’s the hyperbole.

You made the claim that Paizo would have outright failed without these. That’s the hyperbole.

That’s a fair enough criticism honestly. I can no longer edit that post, but if I could I would edit it to add a “potentially” before failing. I truly believe they were a massive factor and likely made the difference between the system’s financial success and failure (given the massive financial and logistical difficulties Paizo faced early in PF2E’s lifecycle), but I can’t state that for certain or objectively.

I also want to make clear that this doesn’t diminish the incredible work of Paizo’s staff and contracted writers in any way. It’s just that in the digital age and especially during the pandemic being accessible virtually is of paramount importance for games to find mainstream financial success.

I mean, seeing the solution with Hephaistos, I think it all depends on what the plans that Paizo have are. Maybe they'll make it really easy for fans developing tools for Paizo games in the future to get such a license -- with them simply needing to have an early version working and then contacting them through email

Like, sure, it's extra hoops, it's annoying, it's not ideal, I don't think anyone is denying any of that, and I'm sure everyone at Paizo feels this way, but this is probably the best outcome after extensive back and forth with lawyers

Of course, that's the case if they make it easy. If it's a situation where it's mostly easy for people grandfathered in, but people moving forward simply won't have any options, that's a problem, but I guess that only time can really tell (maybe it's something that they can talk about in the QnA?)

@Peacelock

*nods*

While i disagree with that claim obviously i certainly won’t deny the boon the 3pp stuff was (and is), especially given the shunt to online play overall during that time.

I don't think any of us, even Paizo, can ever know for certain just how big an impact the various third-party projects made to Pathfinder's growth and survival.

What I can say is that I wouldn't have put more than a decade's work into my project if I didn't think it was making a difference.

As far as "just get a special license" I think there are some issues with that. Ron Lundeen, former corporate attorney and then former paizo employee, once said this about a previous revision of the CUP:

Discourage Licensees. The former policy had a statement about how you might be able to get more rights if you become a Paizo licensee, with an email how to reach out to them. The new policy says, "We also offer commercial licenses, but generally only to established companies with good reputations and solid business plans." To me, this reads like Paizo had too many small-scale people reaching out to them for licenses, and they wanted to say, basically, "serious applicants only." That's understandable. But I worry about the chilling effect of this new statement, particularly for eager but novice entrants into this business (such as content creators from marginalized minorities); being outside the traditionally white-male-dominated power brokers in our hobby, they might be too easily dismissed as not having "good reputations."

So just getting some bespoke license isn't a great solution when Paizo in the past has actively discouraged getting such licenses unless you were an established company and had solid business plans.

Rons posts:
Paizo Updates the CUP
More CUP updates

nursestationick wrote:

Hi if I want to start a website were people can share homebrew AP and onshots they have written with a possibility of selling them as long as the material is within the regulations with the licenses is that okay?

If they are using the Pathfinder and Starfinder settings or other material that isn't licensed via the OGL or ORC, then such APs and one-shots need to be released on Pathfinder or Starfinder Infinite. If they're using a different setting or no setting, then they can function as you describe under the OGL/ORC and (if you so choose) the Paizo Compatibility License.

But these policies are meant to apply to published content, not general discussion, so if it's a forum where people are just tossing around ideas for campaigns or homebrew material, that's not something we're interested in policing.

You do realize how "Not interested in policing" is just asking for us to hope for Paizo's goodwill and while you're still operating on it for now, in just a few years and a bit of turnover, that stance can change.

The community just wants to be protected from lawsuits for passion projects. The community wants to be able to continue to benefit you as a company. AoN would not exist if not for the CUP. Arguably your most important partner. Hephaistos reinvigorated the SF1e community, and was only possible because of the CUP. Wanderer's Guide is a superior tool for PF2e than pathbuilder and herolab and demiplane by far, and they only existed due to the CUP. PF2Easy is a superior reference tool to AoN who consistently refuses to innovate their site for usability, and only enabled by CUP. You at paizo still refuse to provide form fillable PDFs and auto-calc sheets in the year 2024 and without CUP, we can't provide those legally. None of these are possible via the FCP, nor ORC.

You're telling the entire community "trust me" with the idea that they won't eat a lawsuit for making good tools for the community to use. For getting new people interested in creating content in the setting. For fostering the idea of people becoming authors. For fostering the idea of people making tools that eventually become your partners and make your company greater. Your game and community was better for the CUP, and "trust me we won't sue you" isn't inspiring of creators and community.

Infinite and 3PP doesn't cater to people who are trying to get started. Its a tool that invites interest from people already entrenched in the creator sphere. Tools like pf2.tools that give people an easy way to make new monsters and share them with the community, or write something with the scribe tool to expand upon a part of an adventure cut for pagecount, turn it into a PDF, and host it out of their google drive - that creator is what becomes a resource for Paizo later on.

The community shouldn't need to read legalese to be safe. The community shouldn't have to rely on the trust of a publisher not to pull a nintendo on them and C&D their fan project, which is exactly what you've made with the move to the FCP. "Trust me bro" isn't a way to foster a community.

Has that FAQ been made yet? I understand it might take a while to work adjustments to the language, but it seems like a pretty straightforward thing to post an FAQ highlighting the clear way forward after something like this was dropped on the community so abruptly.

Started this a few weeks back and originally decided not to post it, but speaking of trust.... Let's talk about how previously acceptable avenues for publishing free adventures with paizo IP are now being pushed into Infinite. Before you could read the relatively simple CUP. Now you have to dig to find the Infinite License and when you find it, it is a fairly one-sided deal.

Some highlights of "trust":

5. Rights You Grant to Roll20 and The Publisher

(a) No Reversion. Due to our licensing arrangement with the Publisher and the collaborative nature of the Program, you are granting us broad licenses in your Work and your User Generated Content included in your Work, and the rights to your Work will not be reverted once it is published in the Program. You will have the ability through online tools at Roll20 websites to stop further public sale of your Work on Roll20 marketplaces (though customers who already purchased digital download copies will continue to have access to the purchased Work), but not to stop the sale or use of works of other authors in the Program, or to limit Publisher's rights in the Work, even when such works use your User Generated Content that you originally created in your Work and thereby became part of the Program IP for other authors to use

(b) License to your Work. Effective as of the date you setup your Work through the Program onRoll20's website, you grant Roll20 and the Publisher the irrevocable, royalty-free license throughout the world for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to develop, license, reproduce, print, publish, distribute, translate, display, publicly perform and transmit your Work, in whole and in part, in each country in the world, in all languages and formats, and by all means now known or later developed, and the right to prepare derivative works of your Work (the "Publisher Derivatives"). Publisher shall own all right, title, and interest in and to the Publisher Derivatives.

(c) License to all User Generated Content in your Work. Effective as of the date we first make your Work available through the Program, you grant us the irrevocable license for the full term of copyright protection available (including renewals), to all User Generated Content included in your Work. You agree that the User Generated Content is available for unrestricted use by us without any additional compensation, notification, or attribution, including that we may allow other Program authors, The Publisher, and other third parties to use the User Generated Content.

You are granting rights to your work without reversion to Paizo/Roll20. This is irrevocable, royalty-free license to develop, license, reproduce, publish, distribute, translate, display, perform your work in any language, and any future means. They can also make derivative works under full copyright ownership of your works.

4. Rights Granted to You.

(a) Subject to your compliance with the terms of this Agreement, Roll20 grants you the limited, nonexclusive, nontransferable, personal, worldwide, and revocable right to use and otherwise incorporate Publisher IP and Program IP into your Work(s) for distribution through the Program only.

(b) Except for short promotional excerpts used to promote your Work, you may not display, recreate, publish, distribute, or sell your Work (or derivatives thereof) outside of the Program administered on Roll20 websites or through other platforms or channels authorized or offered by the Publisher.

You may not publish, recreate, distribute, or sell your work on anywhere other than Infinite, Roll20, or other platforms offered by the Publisher.

So now we have established that you are locked into their platform, cannot sell it elsewhere. There's already some 'trust' issues in there. Like even if you are granted the ability to publish, sell, or distribute, your work on another site/VTT then that could always be taken away. It needs to be in the license text explicitly what sites are allowed.

But we're not done yet.

3. Account Information; Account Suspension.
[...]
(c) Account Suspension. We may suspend your account or your participation in the Program at any time. You acknowledge that if we do so, you may be prevented from accessing communications and content on the Roll20 websites. If we suspend your account, you must stop using your Roll20 account and you will not create any new accounts.

Self explanatory. And just in case you don't acknowledge that, here it is again

9. No Obligation to Make Available or Sell.

You acknowledge that we have no obligation to market, distribute, or offer for sale your Work, or to continuing marketing, distributing or selling your Work after we have started doing so. We may remove your Work from the Program and cease further exploitation at any time in our sole discretion without notice to you

Last sentence.

When you put all these things together, along with the other clauses of the agreement, you get a fairly one-sided deal in exchange for the use of Paizo IP. You are essentially trusting Paizo/Roll20 not to take down your work without cause. They could suspend your account and still continue selling your work, leaving you with no control over it. While they would have to pay you for any sales of your original work, they would not owe you anything for any royalty-free derivative works they create under the full copyright license you granted them.

While the CUP license had clauses that allowed Paizo to revoke your ability to use the policy, you weren't irrevocably granting rights to your work to Paizo. If they revoked your ability to use the CUP you could strip the Paizo IP from the work and republish on your own. But if the same thing happened on Infinite you are out of luck.

And there is no clear guidelines or reasons for why content might be removed or accounts might be suspended. Nor is there an opt-out or right to revoke the rights you've granted Paizo/Roll20.

This is why it is unacceptable to me to release my free adventure that I commissioned art for under the Infinite license. Notwithstanding that Infinite doesn't allow a foundry module, I would be in a very one-sided relationship. I'm better off not using Paizo IP at all. And maybe that is how they want things to be. As I've said before, it is their brand and IP. They can do with it what they want. But I don't have to like it.

Posts like this post right here could be something that could cause them to decide to pull any works on Infinite if I used it. Given that there was an incident in the past where a Paizo executive doxxed a forum user, it raises concerns about how much power Paizo could wield over content creators under this agreement. That's part of why I've been hesitant to add more critical posts in case they just want to ban me from the forums or my account altogether.

FWIW I have a much higher opinion of Paizo, and I don't think they would do these things, but they could. And I understand to a certain extent some of these clauses are necessary to operate a store that sells user submitted work. However, a more balanced license could have been employed, with less ambiuity and one-sidedness. The current text has an issue that this is a lot of trust placed into Paizo/Roll20 in exchange to use the Paizo IP. That's literally all you get under section 4 Rights Granted to You. They give you the right to use their IP but only within the platform. While I currently trust Paizo, who is to say I still will next year or 5 years from now. The current structure of the agreement creates potential for misuse. For example, they could maliciously take down all content of a certain type and then create royalty-free derivatives of that work.

The CUP was a simple policy that did not require a lawyer to understand its terms when I first started releasing projects under it years ago (~2016-2018?). I can't say the same for the Infinite Agreement. It would've turned me off from working on content, or I would have just read their FAQ and trusted them rather than reading the license, because they make it hard to find. I am curious how many people selling on the infinite platform have read and understood the Infinite license.

I personally wouldn't have an issue with Infinite's license as much if it wasn't for the Paizo IP TTRPG products being silo'ed into it. It's a walled garden. Once your work is on Infinite, you're stuck there. Forever. You lose all flexibility to use your own work elsewhere, even if they ban you without reason or if future changes to the agreement no longer align with your values. If they want paid products on there then that's fine. But free TTRPG products need the CUP brought back or a revised Fan Content Policy.

I appreciate Paizo being willing to listen to community feedback and work towards a solution that is feasible for both them and the community.

And for everyone else, I encourage you to read the Infinite license. I'm intentionally not linking it. Try finding it, and if you do find it, give it a read. Understanding the full implications of the Infinite license is crucial for any creator considering publishing under it. Your rights, your work's future, and your ability to manage your content are all tied up in these terms.

Disclaimer: As always, im not a lawyer and i'm not your lawyer. I have done my best to represent the license text factually correct, but if I made a mistake then I guess that just further proves my point that this is a license that requires a lawyer to understand

One random issue that hasn't come up yet: quite a lot of material that was released under the OGL was also released by WotC under a Creative Commons CC-BY license (i.e., with no downstream obligations other than an acknowledgement - so you don't have to put a CC license on yourself). For instance, the eight schools of magic, spell names like 'magic missile', chromatic and metallic dragons, and tieflings are in that CC release. (The monster descriptions, though, are very bare-bones: 'marilith' is in, for instance, but there's nothing about their physical appearance beyond that implied by their stat block; 'drow' is in, and refers to a usually-evil race of implied-underground elves with certain magic powers, but very little drow flavor is included.)

The ORC faq explicitly says that CC-BY material is permitted in an ORC-licensed product, and I can't see anything in the Infinite FAQs that prohibits it. So it looks as if someone could, e.g., create a supplement that reintroduces the eight schools and wizard specializations into Pathfinder 2e and release it either under the ORC or on Pathfinder Infinite (though they'd have to invent new rules rather than reusing the Pathfinder 2e OGL versions). They could also do PF2e versions of spells like Acid Arrow or Burning Hands, again provided they didn't just copy the mechanics from the 2e OGL versions. And they could release a 'chromatic and metallic dragons' bestiary supplement, basing the dragon stats off a conversion of 5e to the PF2e system rather than just borrowing the stats in PF2e OGL.

Is that correct?

I think the main issue here is the removal of the CUP without advanced notice and appropriate alternatives since the new license prohibits so many use cases that are common nowadays.

It seems obvious this is a way to consolidate 3rdparty stuff on Infinite which serves both as an easy gateway for existing authors to sell stuff and give roll20 a 30% and Paizo a 20% cut rather than just offering it for free and a way to advertise this store to the community because they'll have to interact with it.

Personally, I don't want to enter into a license agreement that prevents me from distributing my content elsewhere since not only is that in direct conflict with Free Software licenses such as the AGPL but it also shuts down any collaboration that can occur on GitHub. Plus I don't like Roll20.

I'm currently removing the CUP parts from my software and will just fall back on the OGL license. It's a lot of pain and work to shoulder that in my free time.

Peacelock wrote:

Paizo owes the CUP everything. They often say how PF2E’s success saved the company, but the tools created under CUP are what saved PF2E from failing amidst the pandemic. And in the future, no new ones can be created.

That is a very bold claim.

Were these programs helpful to those who used them? Yes, but i think you’re vastly overestimating how many people used them, or that they were required to play.

Spreading this sort of impassioned hyperbole doesn’t really help anyone.

I don't think it is much of an exaggeration (but there is no way for anybody to know for sure).

The vast majority of people I've talked with use Foundry for PF2 (even in-person).

I have not talked to a single person that does not use Pathbuilder (or, to a lesser extent, Wanderer's Guide or Dyslexic Character Sheets). I'm sure there must be some but I have never talked with them (and I've talked to a LOT of PF2 players and GMs).

Try finding it, and if you do find it, give it a read. Understanding the full implications of the Infinite license is crucial for any creator considering publishing under it. Your rights, your work's future, and your ability to manage your content are all tied up in these terms.

Wow you weren't kidding, that took some digging to be able to download and read. Having done so, perhaps not to the full depth necessary, I have to say that I too am a little disheartened.

Was this not exactly what we were rallying against when WOTC tried to revoke the OGL? Against a walled garden where in order to publish you needed to give up all rights to your IP in exchange for the privilege of publishing on DnDbeyond/Pathfinder Infinite.

I was really looking forward to writing some adventure sequels for my favorite system but, while I agree that their intent seems to be in the right place, there is a lot of room for abuse in the system.

I do hope that someone with better reading comprehension then me will may shed it all in a better light.

This feels decidedly like WOTC/OGL, whether intended or not.

This is burning through the goodwill generated by Paizo’s response to that crisis.

The community character builders and community supported extensions to VTTs give Pathfinder 2E the competitive edge, the spirit of community that makes all the difference between Paizo and WOTC.

It’s always been “yes, the rules are free but the quality and integrity of Paizo make me want to purchase the books and tools and..”.

I’m a Demiplane subscriber and a proud owner of the FLGS Remaster books, as well as owner of countless Paizo books- hard cover, soft cover, pocket sized, PDFs, Demiplane copies. Pathfinder (both editions), Starfinder 1st. Humble Bundles, Kickstarters, even Pathfinder Online.

I buy to support your support of the community.

I buy to support your support of the community creators.

If Paizo won’t support community character builders, VTT implementations, community modules and addenda and settings and all of the like, then why should we support Paizo?

I run several game tables that are playing PF2, one that just finished a PF1 campaign, and one that was getting ready to move to Starfinder 2E.

I want to believe that this isn’t intentional, that this was a misstep along an otherwise noble and community minded path.

Please prove us all right in our love and support of Paizo; extend licenses to the community creators that have made us into the ardent fans of your work that we are.

Thank you.

I’d also add that funneling all free content through Infinite is bad for the creators trying to sell products there because it inundates the storefront with free small supplements that reduce the visibility of paid premium efforts.

It would be a significant financial blow to the existing creators on the platform when their work is much harder to find amidst a sea of content that wasn’t intended for what is fundamentally a storefront to begin with.

I also just don't like that by funneling stuff into Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite you won't be allowed to port the content to other VTTs, only to Roll20.

I’d also add that funneling all free content through Infinite is bad for the creators trying to sell products there because it inundates the storefront with free small supplements that reduce the visibility of paid premium efforts.

It would be a significant financial blow to the existing creators on the platform when their work is much harder to find amidst a sea of content that wasn’t intended for what is fundamentally a storefront to begin with.

This is somewhat of a side piece, but this "be our partner or you can't exist" license that the revocation of the CUP creates really just makes it obvious how bad some of the Paizo partners are.

PFI/SFI would be a much more amenable system if OneBookshelf wasn't a terrible storefront and absolutely atrocious content discovery system, and so restrictive of content types. The Paizo Store looks like a modern product in comparison. AoN is a great resource, but other non-partner products are so much more usable and quick. (The PFI licenses were always atrocious and predatory, but as the only option for *paid* content, this was acceptable. As the only option for *free* content, its unacceptable)

If the partners aren't forced to a certain quality, their partners are doing them a disservice. The CUP permitted for the partners to not be as painful of an experience for the customer, because we had community alternatives.

It’s been about a month since this was announced and it feels like the only things keeping this from becoming a full blown OGL Crisis level loss of community faith and reputation off forum is people here hoping that somehow your explanatory FAQ comes with massive revisions to the core of what you’ve done and said you’re doing, and that most people have no idea this happened because nobody on YouTube with a large following has made a video detailing this yet.

What are you guys doing Paizo? Cause I really doubt a FAQ explaining what you’ve done and that you’re not going to back down on any of this is going to help you at this point given everything we’ve read and had explained to us by you.

You do indeed need to protect your IP and company, but this certainly isn’t the only way to do it and clearly isn’t the best way given how badly this has gone over.

I also just don't like that by funneling stuff into Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite you won't be allowed to port the content to other VTTs, only to Roll20.

A lot of stuff sold on PFI is already available in FoundryVTT too. PFI doesn't lock you to Roll20.

Noven wrote:

I also just don't like that by funneling stuff into Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite you won't be allowed to port the content to other VTTs, only to Roll20.

A lot of stuff sold on PFI is already available in FoundryVTT too. PFI doesn't lock you to Roll20.

Pretty sure that section 4 of this post suggests otherwise.

Elfteiroh wrote:

Noven wrote:

I also just don't like that by funneling stuff into Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite you won't be allowed to port the content to other VTTs, only to Roll20.

A lot of stuff sold on PFI is already available in FoundryVTT too. PFI doesn't lock you to Roll20.

Pretty sure that section 4 of this post suggests otherwise.

correct. It currently is not being enforced, but could be. The license is granted when you sell a new product on PFI and it explicitly lists what platforms you have the right to make them available on. Without the license explicitly mentioning FoundryVTT then all it would take is for Paizo/R20 to decide to pull all works that have Foundry content. Goes back to the trust thing.

redeux wrote:

Try finding it, and if you do find it, give it a read. Understanding the full implications of the Infinite license is crucial for any creator considering publishing under it. Your rights, your work's future, and your ability to manage your content are all tied up in these terms.

Wow you weren't kidding, that took some digging to be able to download and read. Having done so, perhaps not to the full depth necessary, I have to say that I too am a little disheartened.

Was this not exactly what we were rallying against when WOTC tried to revoke the OGL? Against a walled garden where in order to publish you needed to give up all rights to your IP in exchange for the privilege of publishing on DnDbeyond/Pathfinder Infinite.

I was really looking forward to writing some adventure sequels for my favorite system but, while I agree that their intent seems to be in the right place, there is a lot of room for abuse in the system.

I do hope that someone with better reading comprehension then me will may shed it all in a better light.

I'm glad at least someone tried and found the license. And I say that as a kuthite because it was harder than it should be.

I do think that this is a bit different than what WOTC did. As much as I don't like what Paizo has currently said about their licensing, it's not quite on the same level as the coastal wizards.

The coastal wizards wanted to revoke the OGL which would've prevented people from using any of the WOTC content unless they signed a new license that gave up a good % of money to WOTC.

Separately Paizo has revoked their CUP which, among other things, allowed free TTRPG content to use paizo IP. The reason why this isn't as bad as the OGL debacle is because Paizo still has content published under the OGL and going forward all their content is still being published under the ORC license. Meaning that regardless of what paizo does with their licensing here, as long as they continue to publish ORC content then anyone can continue to use their non-Paizo IP content for free or paid purposes, however they'd like.

The funneling into the walled garden currently only applies if you want that paizo IP. It is their brand and they can do that if they want, but revoking the CUP has been a huge slap in the face to the community that gave them so much love. The Fan Content Policy is generous to allow monetization of non-TTRPG products, but since it does not allow TTRPG products this means you no longer can make free TTRPG products with Paizo IP outside of Infinite.

While I mostly care about the the restoration of the CUP, or a revision of the Fan Content Policy to allow projects to continue to exist, I do think the Infinite license could use some work:
- It needs to specify what other platforms are acceptable so we don't have to trust.
- There needs to be clear expectations about under what conditions an account is suspended or work is pulled.
- The license needs to have Paizo/Roll20 forfeit their interests in your work and rights granted to them by you if they decide to suspend your account or pull your work.
- There should also be the option for creators to withdraw their work and revoke the rights granted to Paizo/roll20. The current license is written near exactly how a contractor agreement I have is written which spells out that the company I do contract work for has full unilateral control over what they do with work that they pay me for. This is acceptable under a paid arrangement. I find it less acceptable that content creators give irrevocable rights to Paizo/Roll20 to the same degree of contract work.
- Make the license text easier to find.
- And I'm sure I could find other things to list off, but in general I think it needs to become less one-sided since overall it is basically a "trust us" sort of thing. Currently you are giving a lot in exchange to use Paizo IP.

I'm glad at least someone tried and found the license. And I say that as a kuthite because it was harder than it should be.

I do think that this is a bit different than what WOTC did. As much as I don't like what Paizo has currently said about their licensing, it's not quite on the same level as the coastal wizards.

The coastal wizards wanted to revoke the OGL which would've prevented people from using any of the WOTC content unless they signed a new license that gave up a good % of money to WOTC.

Separately Paizo has revoked their CUP which, among other things, allowed free TTRPG content to use paizo IP. The reason why this isn't as bad as the OGL debacle is because Paizo still has content published under the OGL and going forward all their content is still being published under the ORC license. Meaning that regardless of what paizo does with their licensing here, as long as they continue to publish ORC content then anyone can continue to use their non-Paizo IP content for free or paid purposes, however they'd like...

Ah I see! Thank you for explaining, I felt like I was missing something. I can see that the OGL crisis and this situation are meaningfully different but also agree that, despite being able to do whatever they want with their IP, that paizo should make some revisions to make it less easily taken advantage of.

I just wondered about another aspect of the policies this blocks: artwork commissions.

If I wanted to have a commission of a character I would have to ensure there is no Pazio IP present in the description. This might not be possible if they rely on specific representations of creatures, such as Paizo's goblins being creatures with beady eyes, razor sharp teeth and football-shaped heads, or a cleric's holy symbol.

The Fan Content Policy doesn't apply to digital works, nor to full-time artists (business venture) clause. There are no applicable licenses, aside from contacting Pazio directly for a bespoke license, but they won't grant them to individual artists if they are only granted to “established companies”.

Maybe unless a hobbyist artist posts a physical print that the commissioner takes a photo or scans in for their game, and the digital file never sees the light of day, but that's a reach.

Something that bothers me is how this unintentionally hits free content the hardest. Let's think this through:

I make an adventure called Nethy's Treasure. And since I'm not a professional or anything I want to give it away for free, so I upload the content to infinite.

Now both the Roll20 and Paizo have full control of my work, which, fine, is not like I wanted to make money out of it.

But now I'm making a foundry module for free based on my adventure... whelp, as per the infinite license I can't do that anymore, because I'm locked inside the Infinite ecosystem. Which is kind of fine I guess, since that gives Paizo control over how their IP is portrayed.

Now, me, who just wanted to share an adventure is now entangled in a web of legalese that is frankly more trouble than it's worth. AoN might have a special license, but it wasn't always like that, it began as something small and grew to become the amazing tool that it is today (much like the PF2 system for Foundry).

Also, R20 could potentially allow the homebrewed content on demiplane or on their VTT EXCLUSIVELY. And that's what I find worrying, this gives Roll20 even more power than they already have over the hobby by indirectly monopolizing Golarion's RPG content. Not a fan of a company holding so much power over a very niche market.

I just wondered about another aspect of the policies this blocks: artwork commissions.

If this is an issue, it's always been an issue since the CUP explicitly forbids making money off it.

I just wondered about another aspect of the policies this blocks: artwork commissions.

If I wanted to have a commission of a character I would have to ensure there is no Pazio IP present in the description. This might not be possible if they rely on specific representations of creatures, such as Paizo's goblins being creatures with beady eyes, razor sharp teeth and football-shaped heads, or a cleric's holy symbol.

The ONLY part of that at all that's relevant is the holy symbol (because it's a specific drawing). Nothing else is relevant, and don't let Paizo or anyone ever try to convince you a license would be needed for such a thing. There's no owning an art style.

And the artist could trivially work around that by you giving a the text description of the holy symbol and the artist not look at the official rendering of it.

Specific characters is muddier and is not resolved clearly.

Imagine a world where the PF2 system for Foundry was never allowed to exist in its current state because the CUP didn't exist.

I probably would have bounced of the system if I never could have used PF2easy to quickly look up AP NPCs during my in-person sessions (Nethys still doesn't have all AP content btw).

Definitely wouldn't run a bunch of adventures on Foundry if I had to manually input all IP content myself for everything.

Very sad that Paizo is pulling up the ladder after fan projects have helped building the community and made the game accessible to get into and run.

Update

Feragore wrote:

I just wondered about another aspect of the policies this blocks: artwork commissions.

If I wanted to have a commission of a character I would have to ensure there is no Pazio IP present in the description. This might not be possible if they rely on specific representations of creatures, such as Paizo's goblins being creatures with beady eyes, razor sharp teeth and football-shaped heads, or a cleric's holy symbol.

The ONLY part of that at all that's relevant is the holy symbol (because it's a specific drawing). Nothing else is relevant, and don't let Paizo or anyone ever try to convince you a license would be needed for such a thing. There's no owning an art style.

And the artist could trivially work around that by you giving a the text description of the holy symbol and the artist not look at the official rendering of it.

Specific characters is muddier and is not resolved clearly.

An art style is how a work is created, it doesn't relate to physical characteristics. A Paizo goblin is a distinct creature regardless whether it's in a cel shaded, exaggerated, or grounded style.

If certain monsters and ancestries had to be removed due to being other IP, then depictions of Paizo's own original monsters and ancestries are in a similar boat.

But otherwise yes, many characters can have no ties to Golarion or other Paizo IP, so long as you only refer to them with generic terms such as 'magic swordsman' or 'god of healing and fire'. Clean-room design essentially, if you were less concerned with a true depiction.

Feragore wrote:

I just wondered about another aspect of the policies this blocks: artwork commissions.

If this is an issue, it's always been an issue since the CUP explicitly forbids making money off it.

That is true, and I can only guess that Paizo is updating their licenses out of a new willingness to enforce them.