New and Revised Licenses

Maurizio Liparesi wrote:

Hi i'm actually managing a website similar to aon+ pathfinderwiki, but in italian, if i understood correctly till 31 August 2024, content can still be done with the Cup licenze and will not be subjected to be deleted after.

First, nothing released under the CUP has to be deleted. It's grandfathered in.

Second, we're going to be looking at the license and how it can better serve our international community in ways the CUP allowed. That will take time, and we appreciate everyone's understanding and patience. As long as you're operating in good faith as we make these adjustments, no one is going to come after you to delete anything.

Now I'm really confused. You just told Hephaistos that they have to remove all the OGL content. But now they're grandfathered?

The fact that this is all so confusing and is taking down the ability for community resources to provide free tools is incredibly disheartening, and even more so that it kills the ability for anyone in the 1e space to expand on adventures with "epilogues" and distribute them to the community without fear of reprisal. Despite the fact that anything they'd do is non-canon, its somehow a threat to Paizo to allow those creators to exist?

Mike Kostyukov wrote:

Though I still hope that Paizo will correct this issue about digital tools, translations and other mentioned stuff in this tread.

Translations are being looked at, digital tools are potentially an issue. Unless they are already OGL/ORC sanitized already like Pathbuilder apparently is already.

Yes, as far as I understand, Pathbuilder and AoN are safe, first because it operates under ORC and not CUP, second - because of unique license as is PFCORE for Foundry, but numerous other tools are not, and sanitizing them would make them less usable to say the least. Not speaking about if their creators even would want to take this huge amount of work on their shoulders, considering that they must find and erase parts of content by themselves without any references basically.

If so, I guess I’m trying to work out why folks are decrying the “end of PF1 and SF1” third party content creation when…it is still just as possible as it was before, only less “available” because of the walling away of Infinite.

See above - the issue is that nobody can maintain tools anymore, nor can they expand on things in the setting in ways that fit well.

SFI was big for multiple reasons, one of which is that it centralized the audience for third party content. Paizo realizes this, which is why they made it illegal for anyone to release outside of it even for free - its a market strategy ploy (and kind of a scummy one, at that, but an understandable one). The second was that it allowed people to produce paid content in-setting for the system without being a full-tilt publisher, the same thing the FCP allowed for free.

Now the only way to do it is to do malicious compliance like 3PP used to back in the day and have "NAbadar and Shaylynn" as dieties worshipped by the Vesk living on the "third planet of their homeworld system" in "an area that is more easily accessible in hyperspace". And we have to strip all mentions of Paizo IP from homebrew tools in any way that Paizo refuses to define (which again, I get, defining what is and is not your IP opens you up to other issues).

So since the Starfinder community is very much focused around the setting, and even in homebrew settings they almost always acknowledge the core setting as the main setting, just usually established as a system in Near Space or The Vast, nobody can publish their homebrews anymore for the community to profit off of unless they go through a bunch of legal malfeasance ahead of time.

That's why what they're doing is effectively killing off the 1e community and forcing us into a sneakernet kind of distribution outside of Paizo's view otherwise we all get sued.

Even though we're all just trying to share our passions of the game and add to a system that Paizo designed years ago to be extremely expandable upon by the community.

There's also the fact that literally 70%+ of equipment and options in the system use Paizo IP names, because Starfinder is a corporate dystopia where everything is branded. We can't even use mechanical terms like the Drift, Near Space, or the Vast, so major elements of the rules have to be retconned as well.

It's an attack on the community to consolidate the market disguised as legal protection. I also understand the aspect of it being a little funky for 2e, with being half OGL and half ORC. But it would've been easy enough to block OGL from 2e in infinite and permit the 1e communities to persist.

Nylanfs wrote:

Mike Kostyukov wrote:

Though I still hope that Paizo will correct this issue about digital tools, translations and other mentioned stuff in this tread.

Translations are being looked at, digital tools are potentially an issue. Unless they are already OGL/ORC sanitized already like Pathbuilder apparently is already.

Yes, as far as I understand, Pathbuilder and AoN are safe, first because it operates under ORC and not CUP, second - because of unique license [...]

I don't know if you meant to imply that or whather it's just weird wording but as far as I know, unlike AoN (and probably Foundry?), Pathbuilder has zero special licenses, it operates purely on OGL/ORC. If it did it (assumedly) wouldn't need to do things like obfuscate the Aldori Duelist archetype as "Duelist (LO:WG)". While I find Pahtbuilder to be a useful and robust tool, this license compliant renaming has been my greatest gripe with it, however since it's monetized there's nothing to be done about it and that's fair. Then again, as of a few days ago, even if it was free it'd need to do the same thing so tough luck to anyone who can't afford to buy a bunch of books on Demiplane I guess

I'll start with the caveats.

0) I am not an attorney, I'm just a meeple on the internet with unsubstantiated opinions.

1) Paizo (like WotC) can decide how to manage its own business.

2) Licensing changes are business decisions, and most North American businesses are not required to consult with external stakeholders about business decisions, regardless of impact.

3) It is not typical for businesses to consult with "the community" about its policies and procedures, around IP or otherwise.

4) From what I understand from watching videos on the internet, American IP law is not community-friendly and often incentivizes non-co-operative practices by companies.

5) It seems like companies can have strict IP policies in place while also not taking action against all sorts of free fan projects. See: the Star Trek fan space.

6) It seems reasonable to expect significant restrictions attached to Pathfinder Infinite, since this is both a monetized option and is a "walled garden" tied closely to Paizo's branding.

I'll follow with presuming some good intentions.

1) Paizo needs to be able distance itself from the OGL, and to do so with certainty and clarity. I expect Paizo wants to be certain that it will avoid any reasonable possibility of being dragged into future litigation. If WotC tries to sue some other creator into the ground over some future Starfinder 1.0 or Pathfinder 1.0 project, Paizo likely doesn't want the expense of being even briefly involved.

2) The current timing might be a result of Paizo + lawyers working hard through a long list of de-OGL-ification issues, and getting expanded monetization rules done in time for Gen Con.

3) Paizo has historically demonstrated an interest in supporting a variety of community and independent endeavours, and one stated intention of the FUP is to offer new ways for entities other than Paizo to make money using Paizo's IP assets.

I'll offer some positive thoughts and hopes for Paizo's new FUP.

1) Paizo making more money is good, for the staff and freelancers of Paizo and for the longevity of Pathfinder/Starfinder!

2) Creators and entertainers having more ways to make money from creations that build upon or engage with Paizo's own creative efforts is also good!

3) I will wait on a firm opinion until folks with skin-in-the-game and/or experience have had time to review and offer longer form comments about the details (that's where non-OGL-devils lurk), but it seems at first impression that Paizo is offering up more ways for other people to make money using Paizo's IP without having to give Paizo a cut or otherwise deal with negotiations and business 'stuff'. If so... that's amazing!

4) Increasing Paizo's presence in the actual play / entertainment stream / podcast space would enhance the visibility (and hopefully growth) of Paizo games, while offering more fun entertainment options for interested patrons.

5) Announcing this policy before GenCon enables creators and Paizo to go to GenCon primed to talk about these policy changes, and collaborate at a giant RPG community networking function.

As noted by other commenters above, however, Paizo's non-replication of certain CUP options under the FUP and Paizo's abrupt termination of the CUP have combined to create some very negative impacts and feelings. This fallout seems largest for those of us who do *not* want to make money using Paizo's IP, and for those of us who might want to continue to support Paizo's older games. (The "modding community", if you will.)

1) Any change that disallows creators from creating and distributing *free* fan-made creations are harmful to the community. The net benefit to Paizo and to creators and entertainers looking to earn income from their works might outweigh the downsides to such changes, and/or such changes might be a necessary evil (from Paizo's perspective) based on other factors. Still, a smaller scope of permitted free creative uses of Paizo's world is a clear loss for the community.

2) The contrast between "hey, lets consult and get feedback from relevant communities to make ORC the best it can be" and "stop creating *free* products using our IP in previously allowable ways, effective immediately" is quite jarring.

3) The immediate removal of the CUP --in the absence of any visible need for its immediate removal-- feels uncomfortably similar to WotC's recent "move fast and the turmoil will pass" approach to change management.

4) There is a segment of the RPG community that still enjoys PF 1.0, and prefers its mechanics and style of play to PF 2.0. It is conceivable that a similar segment of the Starfinder community might prefer SF 1.0 to SF 2.0. Players who appreciate the new Paizo world-building content but who are not fans of Paizo's new game mechanics might prefer to avail of free (or paid, if possible) resources to continue playing Starfinder / Pathfinder, rather than buying into Paizo's new game systems... and that seems like a threat that Paizo would rather avoid.

5) Given the financial incentives at play, it feels very much like Paizo wants to quietly kill off third party supports for SF 1.0 (and PF 1.0) rather than facilitate or allow the PF 1.0 and SFS 1.0 communities to continue to develop free resources to extend the lifespan of their preferred Paizo gaming products.

6) Given the concerns expressed by posters above about the FUP's new restrictions on developing and distributing free tools to support Pathfinder and Starfinder, it feels like Paizo may be trying to create perceived value to potential (or current) paying licensees by adding barriers to the development of fully integrated/effective free alternatives. This seems detrimental to the community, both in terms of the loss of free tools (or the loss of capabilities or clarity available through those free tools), but equally in the loss of competition / pressure on various paying licensees to create better tools that are worth paying for.

Mike Kostyukov wrote:

Nylanfs wrote:

Mike Kostyukov wrote:

Though I still hope that Paizo will correct this issue about digital tools, translations and other mentioned stuff in this tread.

Translations are being looked at, digital tools are potentially an issue. Unless they are already OGL/ORC sanitized already like Pathbuilder apparently is already.

Yes, as far as I understand, Pathbuilder and AoN are safe, first because it operates under ORC and not CUP, second - because of unique license [...]

I don't know if you meant to imply that or whather it's just weird wording but as far as I know, unlike AoN (and probably Foundry?), Pathbuilder has zero special licenses, it operates purely on OGL/ORC. If it did it (assumedly) wouldn't need to do things like obfuscate the Aldori Duelist archetype as "Duelist (LO:WG)". While I find Pahtbuilder to be a useful and robust tool, this license compliant renaming has been my greatest gripe with it, however since it's monetized there's nothing to be done about it and that's fair. Then again, as of a few days ago, even if it was free it'd need to do the same thing so tough luck to anyone who can't afford to buy a bunch of books on Demiplane I guess

Exactly, "weird wording" it is. English isn't my native (even though I did study it quite a bit) and sometimes I still use wording like I do in my language.

I, indeed, meant that in first case (Pathbuilder) there is no danger exactly because it uses OGL/ORC licensing and in second case (Foundry PFcore and AoN) there is special custom license/agreement in play which allows authors to spread their creation in different way than default licensing variants allow

Steve Geddes wrote:

Previously, I commissioned a PF1 adventure set in Golarion which I gave to some people essentially distributing it under the CUP.

Am I understanding correctly that I now couldn’t do that? If I got a module written for me and wanted to give it away, I’d have to not use a license and take the risk?

This is an issue of what qualifies as personal use and what's publishing. If you're having something written, even commissioning it for a fee, and are then distributing it to a handful of friends as a gift, that's personal use, similar to if you wrote up the game notes for your campaign and shared them with your gaming group.

If you commissioned the same adventure and then put it behind your Patreon paywall or made it available for anyone who came to SteveGeddes.com, that's publishing, and you'd need to use the appropriate license. In the latter case, you'd just need to make sure it was hosted not on SteveGeddes.com, but on Pathfinder Infinite.

Thanks, mark.

It felt like I published it (albeit for ten or so people!) but on that understanding, it’s fine.
Cheers

Also. We know that Foundry has a special license to host Pathfinder, but what about Foundry *modules* for Pathfinder, like those that help with gameplay automation and accessibility? Are any of those going to land in hot water just for making the game easier to run? Because these modules are a HUGE reason why people use PF2e on Foundry in the first place. If you restrict them, you are going to make a lot of people very upset.

Modules that are code-only, or only reference Paizo IP through dynamic links that resolve within Foundry, have no ties to any Paizo policy/agreement/License. Content modules are more gray area, and Foundry Staff has been working with Paizo to answer module/translator developer questions.

So just hang tight and don't panic on this particular point quite yet. I imagine at some point Paizo or Foundry will put together a FAQ to help module developers

Anguish wrote:

I remember a different company playing games with licenses not so long ago and being declared The Bad Guy.

You don't make more restrictions and get to be The Good Guy.

I think it i a bit "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation.

Doing nothing would meant that they still had entablements with the OGL and where still somewhat dependent on WotC goodwill.

I hear you BUT... no. They wouldn't have had entanglements with OGL. The people putting out the material would. If WotC were to about-face again - highly unlikely given the massive backlash from the last time - it's the publishers who would have product out of compliance. Worst that happens would be Paizo would pull OGL product from their storefront. That's something this move doesn't prevent.

In the long term this would be a very bad descission as WotC (or better Hasbro) has shown that they don't really respect the customers.

I disagree. They've shown that they do respect the customers. When the customers say "we're done supporting you because you're evil", they backed down. The bean-counter who decided "hey, let's use a license change to extinguish product we don't want to exist" was overruled and it all came to an end.

There's really no reason to think that the OGL drama will repeat itself. The lesson has been learned.

Or has it?

Because that's what's happening here. Paizo is extinguishing OGL-compliant product. It's literally the same result as if WotC hadn't backtracked, except historic product isn't being pulled. Yet.

Paizo has allways been more open with their licences and the fact that AoN exists - and as Mark has posted is in now way affected - shows that they continue that way.

Yeah, that's not my take. They could happily continue to allow OGL-compliant PF1 and SF1 material to be produced. Excuse me... to be put on Pathfinder Infinite. In theory OGL-compliant material could be produced and sold on DriveThruRPG still, but a} Paizo is taking their marbles home in terms of their setting and b} Paizo is taking their marbles home in terms of them being the most obvious place to get Pathfinder/Starfinder material.

Yes, it will be bumpy for a few month for sure, but this not so good decisssion seems to be better then the alternative.

The alternative is: leave legacy licenses alone. << Literally the lesson WotC successfully learned.

Sure, if you want to simplify things, offer improvements. But saying "no, man, you can't produce SF1 material with rules" is... not cool.

I bought a PF2 product this week. Despite being a PF1 player/DM, I'm still occasionally a customer, just not a subscriber. This does not have me wanting to support Paizo anymore. This is pretty clearly "we only want to allow the latest shiny thing", same as WotC. And claim that the intent is different faces the uncomfortable truth that the result is the same. And they're okay with that.

I feel like it's telling that the reactions range from "who would Paizo do this, they're evil" to "this is the best thing I've ever seen." Obviously this is because different folks are affected in different ways, but it shows that a bit of perspective is needed here when assessing the actual effects and motives of these changes.

The people who are saying "this is the best thing I've ever seen." (Not hyperbolic unfortunately) seem to have either not read the actual licenses (just Mark's post) or probably aren't content creators themselves. Exceptions undoubtedly exist.

The people who are saying "who Why would Paizo do this, they're evil" (hyperbolic) are presumably upset because of the drastic and sudden nature of the change, and the poor light it puts Paizo in context of the recent OGL debacle where they were seen as heroes.

Most of the people (especially those who are creators) are confused and concerned. These are valid feelings. It's very clear Paizo either didn't think through the reaching ramifications of this choice, or didn't manage to communicate that successfully. People who make accessibility tools, character tools, fan sites, translations, VTT content, etc. are suddenly left wondering if they'll have to make drastic changes, scrap plans, and kill dreams in little over a month.

The truth is we don't know the full context of this announcement, and while it's reasonable to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt generally, that's very little comfort to the people described above.

I will say that there's pretty much no evidence that anything Paizo has done is in service of greed or ill will to anyone (the idea is honestly laughable). Almost all of it goes back to future-proofing themselves from potential litigation and securing their IP (which is pretty much their whole business). And they are, ultimately, a business in a very difficult and not very profitable industry.

I also don't find the arguments so far that Paizo had to do this, that this was the right way to do it, in any way compelling. But maybe that's the world we live in, where everyone's staking their claims and building fences around their content after WotC poisoned the well.

And for those who put your faith in the goodwill of those currently working at Paizo (as I do), don't forget that businesses can be acquired. There's no reason WotC/Hasboro or thousands of other less scrupulous corporations couldn't hypothetically buy the company and all the IP at some point in the future.

I preface this by saying I love Paizo products, and I *love* rooting for y'all. I'm not an infinite creator, and I haven't played much SF1e, so I have less skin in this than plenty of other commenters.

That being said-- I know there are legal pressures at play, but please reconsider the sunset date for SF1e rules content on Infinite. Mechageddon is still so new, and a lot of us would love to see what the third party content creators have to offer. Based on how much effort and love creators put into their products, giving them until Jan 1 or even Dec 1 would be a really nice move to show y'all are operating in good faith. As someone who wanted to ditch OGL content ASAP, Ive been patiently converting PFS scenarios for my home game since December 2023. We all want the license issues to be wrapped up quickly, but I think the infinite creators could use a little more patience from Paizo when it comes to understanding the license changes and finishing up their works in progress too. When it comes to such a big change, please give folks more time. <3 Good vibes to all y'all and your hard work.

And for those who put your faith in the goodwill of those currently working at Paizo (as I do), don't forget that businesses can be acquired. There's no reason WotC/Hasboro or thousands of other less scrupulous corporations couldn't hypothetically buy the company and all the IP at some point in the future.

Well, the company and IP has to be for sale first, so I don't expect that to ever happen.

I will say that there's pretty much no evidence that anything Paizo has done is in service of greed or ill will to anyone (the idea is honestly laughable). Almost all of it goes back to future-proofing themselves from potential litigation and securing their IP (which is pretty much their whole business). And they are, ultimately, a business in a very difficult and not very profitable industry.

I'd like to agree. Compared to Hasbro's blatant corporate greed, Paizo's driving motivation is to separate themselves from the OGL as quickly as possible, in order to safeguard both the company and the community from outside risks.

But in questions of law, their motivations aren't what matters. The words in the legal documents are what matter. And what those documents say adds up to a big problem for third-party creators.

This whole thing seems confusing and dumb but it's clear that the company isn't going to change its decision or even really cares about the players of old content. They would have given a much longer heads up about this or come up with a more amiable solution than just say no more 1e with lore content.

But then again why would they want to provide a solution to a problem that keeps people from buying a product they don't want?

I feel like it's telling that the reactions range from "who would Paizo do this, they're evil" to "this is the best thing I've ever seen." Obviously this is because different folks are affected in different ways, but it shows that a bit of perspective is needed here when assessing the actual effects and motives of these changes.

For existing CUP projects now prohibited under the FCP, I believe it when their contributors say this is the worst fan interaction they've had with Paizo because it's a significant revocation of permission enacted with no warning. For artisans who can now be compensated for works based on Paizo IP, I believe it when they say this is the best fan interaction they've ever had with Paizo because it's a cool opportunity delivered as a fun surprise.

But I kind of wish that I didn't have the perspective I do and could just knee-jerk my way through this. More context only makes both Paizo's actions in the policies and their inaction around public comment more disappointing, not less.

In July 2023, Paizo teased that a new fan policy for artisans would accompany changes to the CUP.

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. We’re also taking the opportunity to introduce a new fan policy I think many artisans are going to love.

It sounds like that plan morphed from "a change to our CUP (and) a new fan policy" to the CUP being immediately replaced by the FCP. The FCP both replaces the CUP and is a new policy with regulations and permissions for works and compensation that the CUP didn't cover or allow.

But the public comment period didn't make it, and it's the lack of motivation to have one that concerns me more than any motive that might be assigned to the actions that Paizo did take.

Especially as it becomes clearer that Paizo seemingly didn't anticipate how destructive these changes might be, or reach out to registered CUP projects for feedback, the lack of comment period becomes a glaring problem. Registration was mandatory under the CUP, and that registry link includes all of the projects whose contributors have posted here either in surprise and/or concern——and their concerns also appear to have surprised Paizo.

These issues could have been acknowledged, and maybe even prevented, by soliciting feedback about the FCP from CUP projects before replacing the CUP with it.

Instead, we're mired in a microcosm of the OGL 1.1 fallout, only somehow instead of finding out before it's enacted, the CUP is already done and dusted. Project contributors got to find out about ambiguous potential threats of legal action from the company they've supported for years and now have to decide which of their free passion projects and community resources they love enough to organize against the company to force changes, or whether to upend and broadly revise their projects to remain compliant with the new terms, or walk away from the open licenses they've enjoyed and give up their freedom to choose where and how they distribute their works, or shut down and leave the headaches behind altogether.

And those who fight for changes or change their projects in order to stay compliant then have to choose to keep supporting the company with their labor while knowing that it's demonstrated that it can and likely will change the terms of those policies on them again with the same lack of notice, input, or consideration. That stays true no matter what amends the company makes; it was true before the changes, too, but now it's impossible to ignore.

This whole thing seems confusing and dumb but it's clear that the company isn't going to change its decision or even really cares about the players of old content. They would have given a much longer heads up about this or come up with a more amiable solution than just say no more 1e with lore content.

But then again why would they want to provide a solution to a problem that keeps people from buying a product they don't want?

I think this is needlessly pessmimistic. Whether or not Paizo cares about the game is not actually relevant, they've pissed off far more than just the 1e crowd. We're not bargaining with some industry giant for once, I reckon Paizo really can't weather something like a potential boycott. If even Wizards caved under pressure then I fail to see how Paizo wouldn't. In case good intent towards their community won't make them reconsider, we can.

Artofregicide wrote:

And for those who put your faith in the goodwill of those currently working at Paizo (as I do), don't forget that businesses can be acquired. There's no reason WotC/Hasboro or thousands of other less scrupulous corporations couldn't hypothetically buy the company and all the IP at some point in the future.

Well, the company and IP has to be for sale first, so I don't expect that to ever happen.

We can all agree Paizo isn't on the market now and that it's current leadership almost certainly would never agree to sell it. But that it would never be? I wish I lived in that world. Hasbro acquired a little company called WotC in 1999 (mostly for MtG), and honestly I couldn't imagine the old guard original founders of WotC would have dreamed of running their company the way its run now.

And keep in mind, Paizo isn't a passion project. It's a business. And one that's in a very difficult industry. We all want Paizo to do well, to be clear. But if they go under, they may not have a choice but to sell (and if they don't, the IP may end up for grabs anyway).

Don't forget that the old guard at Paizo is, well, old. They have to retire at some point. They've brought in some really great people to carry the torch. But if we've learned anything from the OGL crisis, good intentions are no safeguard against corporate greed.

Don't get me wrong. Even if I don't buy a single product from Paizo going forward (very unlikely), I want them to be successful because of the force of good they are in the industry. But I won't be naive about where things stand.

Dracology wrote:

This whole thing seems confusing and dumb but it's clear that the company isn't going to change its decision or even really cares about the players of old content. They would have given a much longer heads up about this or come up with a more amiable solution than just say no more 1e with lore content.

But then again why would they want to provide a solution to a problem that keeps people from buying a product they don't want?

I think this is needlessly pessmimistic. Whether or not Paizo cares about the game is not actually relevant, they've pissed off far more than just the 1e crowd. We're not bargaining with some industry giant for once, I reckon Paizo really can't weather something like a potential boycott. If even Wizards caved under pressure then I fail to see how Paizo wouldn't. In case good intent towards their community won't make them reconsider, we can.

While I'm not happy with this decision, I wouldn't support a boycott of Paizo for this reason. I probably wouldn't support a boycott even Lisa Stevens came out and said the reason they made this decision purely out of corporate greed and to seal an infernal pact with Mammon. I don't think a boycott would be successful both in general or in accomplishing any of the stated goals.

I do think, however, that this decision may have the unintended effect of harming community participation and driving away fans (and thus customers). Maybe that's a risk they've calculated, but the way the announcement was presented doesn't cast it in the light of "this is an unfortunate sacrifice we need to make".

And thus Paizo may manage to create the effects of a boycott (depressed sales and community hostility) inadvertently. But my guess is they'll do something to address and clarify their plans based on the very mixed feedback.

Yes, the owners retired but still own it, as far as I know. So until time marches on, I don't see selling the company being a thing to worry about.

I wish the FCP would extend Videos to tutorials and not only .. liveplay

Yes, the owners retired but still own it, as far as I know. So until time marches on, I don't see selling the company being a thing to worry about.

Time does keep marching on, doesn't it?

If we're still here in twenty years, I'll count it as a win.

I'm also extremely confused as to how this affects FoundryVTT modules.

Is a free module for the PF2E System on FoundryVTT that automates aspects of some Feats or Conditions (that are in System already, to be clear) now unable to do so if the Feats/Conditions themselves come from a mix of OGL and ORC sources? Cause if so that's going to be doing some significant damage to a number of ubiquitous modules in the community and potentially kill a bunch outright.

The type of FoundryVTT module you're describing shouldn't be affected by this, because they're adding new features or automation to the system that's already in place and fully licensed to include both Paizo's mechanics and setting IP. A module that added a whole bunch of new setting content and rules that wasn't already part of the system would likely not be covered by the license.

Mark: Where is this FAQ that you are referring to?

Each of the individual licenses has an existing FAQ linked at the top of its page. We will be updating these with answers to new questions that have arisen since Monday, but I don't have a specific date when you can expect those, largely because we're all headed to Indianapolis for Gen Con in 2-3 business days. In the meantime, I'm doing what I can to address questions in this thread.

For what i've understood you are near the only change is that you can still use the Cup until august 31

No, the CUP is replaced by the FCP immediately. Any existing material posted under the CUP can remain up indefinitely, but if it's updated or expanded upon, those parts will need to comply with the FCP. So a static CUP document—like, say a conversion guide for a specific adventure, made 2 years ago—can remain forever. It was made in compliance with the license that existed at the time of publication. If it's a living document that is going to have new additions put in it, then when the next addition is made, it also needs to ensure the entire document is now compliant with the FCP, not just the new parts.

We will be adding information to the FCP FAQ that guides users through the process of updating older CUP content be FCP compliant, including clarification that we understand these changes can't happen immediately, and that a good faith show of effort to update existing resources is all we ask for.

The August 31 date is the cutoff for the last OGL product someone can release via Pathfinder or Starfinder Infinite.

i cannot risk to put out an srd for it, because if i fail down to remove one term that paizo has copyrighted and i don't KNOW It they can take down all my work.

As the one who would be sending out requests for changes, let me assure you that we would only resort to a full takedown request if you refused to work with us if we point out individual instances where you're not compliant. For example, if you accidentally included a proper name in a feat or spell or whatever, we'd just ask you to change that element.

But I also request that you wait for us to put the translation permissions back into the license, as they were removed unintentionally, before passing final judgment on how much risk is involved in your project.

Gorgo Primus wrote:

I'm also extremely confused as to how this affects FoundryVTT modules.

Is a free module for the PF2E System on FoundryVTT that automates aspects of some Feats or Conditions (that are in System already, to be clear) now unable to do so if the Feats/Conditions themselves come from a mix of OGL and ORC sources? Cause if so that's going to be doing some significant damage to a number of ubiquitous modules in the community and potentially kill a bunch outright.

The type of FoundryVTT module you're describing shouldn't be affected by this, because they're adding new features or automation to the system that's already in place and fully licensed to include both Paizo's mechanics and setting IP. A module that added a whole bunch of new setting content and rules that wasn't already part of the system would likely not be covered by the license.

Thank you for your continued patience and responsiveness.

If I can ask for clarification on specific Foundry modules, where does this leave the Starfinder 1E system (I'm not sure if that has the same special license as the PF2E system), and the Pathmuncher module (which contains as part of its code a mapping from the ORC-compliant names in Pathbuilder to names containing Paizo IP as they are found in the Foundry)?

… i dont think P1 was built to oppose anything. I think it was just made so Paizo could stay in business.

100% this.

At the time, Paizo was publishing content under the OGL using the 3.5 rules, and recognized that if people were going to buy and play these products, there needed to be an in-print rules system that was getting ongoing support. Because tying your brand to another company's core rulebooks that are going to become harder and harder to find as time goes on is not the way to grow your fan base. And while the first version of Pathfinder could have just been a word-for-word reprint of the 3.5 SRD, the fact that "the patient was already open" made for a great opportunity to tinker with mechanics that the previous 9 years of using them had revealed to be less than optimized.

The fact that a large majority of the gaming community was uninterested in moving on from the 3.5 core game they loved, and chose Pathfinder over 4E, was merely good fortune.

But gamers love edition wars and the narrative has taken on more of an oppositional tone than reflected reality since the earliest days of the Pathfinder playtest. C'est la vie.

Maurizio Liparesi wrote:

For what i've understood you are near the only change is that you can still use the Cup until august 31

No, the CUP is replaced by the FCP immediately. Any existing material posted under the CUP can remain up indefinitely, but if it's updated or expanded upon, those parts will need to comply with the FCP. So a static CUP document—like, say a conversion guide for a specific adventure, made 2 years ago—can remain forever. It was made in compliance with the license that existed at the time of publication. If it's a living document that is going to have new additions put in it, then when the next addition is made, it also needs to ensure the entire document is now compliant with the FCP, not just the new parts.

We will be adding information to the FCP FAQ that guides users through the process of updating older CUP content be FCP compliant, including clarification that we understand these changes can't happen immediately, and that a good faith show of effort to update existing resources is all we ask for.

The August 31 date is the cutoff for the last OGL product someone can release via Pathfinder or Starfinder Infinite.

Maurizio Liparesi wrote:

i cannot risk to put out an srd for it, because if i fail down to remove one term that paizo has copyrighted and i don't KNOW It they can take down all my work.

As the one who would be sending out requests for changes, let me assure you that we would only resort to a full takedown request if you refused to work with us if we point out individual instances where you're not compliant. For example, if you accidentally included a proper name in a feat or spell or whatever, we'd just ask you to change that element.

But I also request that you wait for us to put the translation permissions back into the license, as they were removed unintentionally, before passing final judgment on how much risk is involved in your project.

thank for your clarification.

DMurnett wrote:

Dracology wrote:

This whole thing seems confusing and dumb but it's clear that the company isn't going to change its decision or even really cares about the players of old content. They would have given a much longer heads up about this or come up with a more amiable solution than just say no more 1e with lore content.

But then again why would they want to provide a solution to a problem that keeps people from buying a product they don't want?

I think this is needlessly pessmimistic. Whether or not Paizo cares about the game is not actually relevant, they've pissed off far more than just the 1e crowd. We're not bargaining with some industry giant for once, I reckon Paizo really can't weather something like a potential boycott. If even Wizards caved under pressure then I fail to see how Paizo wouldn't. In case good intent towards their community won't make them reconsider, we can.

While I'm not happy with this decision, I wouldn't support a boycott of Paizo for this reason. I probably wouldn't support a boycott even Lisa Stevens came out and said the reason they made this decision purely out of corporate greed and to seal an infernal pact with Mammon. I don't think a boycott would be successful both in general or in accomplishing any of the stated goals.

I do think, however, that this decision may have the unintended effect of harming community participation and driving away fans (and thus customers). Maybe that's a risk they've calculated, but the way the announcement was presented doesn't cast it in the light of "this is an unfortunate sacrifice we need to make".

And thus Paizo may manage to create the effects of a boycott (depressed sales and community hostility) inadvertently. But my guess is they'll do something to address and clarify their plans based on the very mixed feedback.

I somewhat agree with your assessment, most notably that even without an organized boycott and regardless of their potential ammends their sales will likely see something of a dip. This was a big shock and might have scared away or alienated some people that won't come back just because Paizo pinky promises it won't happen again. I also agree that Paizo will almost certainly do something based on the backlash. Which I do think is the appropriate description, I would hardly call the reception "mixed" just by the three or so people here that are happy among this wall of criticism.

However I disagree that if they don't, and decide to go through with (maybe unintentionally) bold-facedly antagonizing the community anyways, a boycott is not the right course of action. I think it very much is. For one, what else is the average consumer supposed to do? Complaining about it on the internet could achieve something, it's why we're all doing it, but if that fails a boycott is our only option. I also don't think it would be ineffective as long as we're vocal about what our demands are (broader and friendlier community policies and ideally more respect towards the 1e community in specific).

I must repeat, Wizards of the Coast called off OGL 1.1 (for the time being) under similar pressure simply because it might hurt their bottom line. Paizo is not even in the same league, they can't assume that dedicated customers will be balanced out by a casual audience the same way Wizards can. If there's even mediocre participation from their customer base, a boycott could threaten much more than reduced profits. I'd rather we didn't have to, I'd love to participate in the SF2 playtest with the official adventures and whatnot, but I can't in good faith support a company that disrespects its fans to this degree.

I think that's the most important thing to note here. I don't believe Paizo should have any degree of privileged immunity from criticism or boycotts. They've been doing great work for RPGs, that's undeniable, it's why I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt enough to wait what they have to say for themselves. But it's not what a company's done that's important, it's what they're doing. Companies change. Wizards has. And right now Paizo is slipping up. I'll treat them like they've made an accidental mistake because that's the most good faith interpretation of this situation, and I will expect them to fix their mistake or else lose my trust and support. I bought my first Pathfinder book as a symbolic protest against different company that had burned through any and all goodwill they might have had left. I'll gladly refrain from doing it again if the new company I placed my bet on acts no better.

Also. We know that Foundry has a special license to host Pathfinder, but what about Foundry *modules* for Pathfinder, like those that help with gameplay automation and accessibility? Are any of those going to land in hot water just for making the game easier to run? Because these modules are a HUGE reason why people use PF2e on Foundry in the first place. If you restrict them, you are going to make a lot of people very upset.

As I said in a response to an earlier, similar, query, the core of the Pathfinder system (including both rules and lore) is maintained by the Foundry team (and a cadre of hardworking volunteers) and is covered under a commercial license with Paizo. A module that adds accessibility, quality of life, or just fun gizmos to that core system are all fine. Most of them are rules-related, like automating mechanical effects or processes, and would be covered entirely by the OGL/ORC anyway.

This will be addressed in the FAQ in the near future.

Now I'm really confused. You just told Hephaistos that they have to remove all the OGL content. But now they're grandfathered?

The OGL and CUP are two different things. We have no say in what someone does with OGL content because we don't control that license, and it's irrevocable.

I said that Hephaistos would need to scrub Paizo's IP from their tools to be compliant with the FCP, but that existing CUP stuff would be grandfathered in so long as it stays in the state it was in when published under that license. (The CUP included language that said that changes to or cancelation of the license wouldn't necessitate the removal of CUP content, just the cessation of publishing new material under the old terms.)

I wish the FCP would extend Videos to tutorials and not only .. liveplay

It extends to all videos, save for, I guess a full feature film or something using our world and characters.

A tutorial, like reviews, falls pretty squarely into the realm of Fair Use anyway. A live-play, however, involves a TON of proprietary characters and events and other elements that aren't as clearly covered by Fair Use, which is why they're called out specifically.

I will look at this section and see if we can clarify it, either in the license or the FAQ.

If I can ask for clarification on specific Foundry modules, where does this leave the Starfinder 1E system (I'm not sure if that has the same special license as the PF2E system), and the Pathmuncher module (which contains as part of its code a mapping from the ORC-compliant names in Pathbuilder to names containing Paizo IP as they are found in the Foundry)?

I'm not personally as familiar with specific modules as other members of the staff who deal with them more directly, but the Starfinder First Edition system would be covered under the same license that allows FoundryVTT to host and maintain the Pathfinder system. The latter one also sounds like it's fine, because it's interacting with the Paizo IP that already exists in the (fully licensed) system, not introducing them itself.

We are in contact with the Foundry team and we/they will be issuing more clarifications once time (and the ever-approaching march of Gen Con) allows.

As you mention, Archives of Nethys has a commercial license to operate and maintain a rules reference for the community, and part of this change is to ensure that that license (and those of other partners) actually means something, because someone else can't end-around that license by combining the OGL/ORC with the Community Use Policy and do the exact same thing.

I think this quote is the source of a lot of the problems. I've thought it was a bad thing each time Paizo announced a partnership, because it made this sort of nonsense seem much more likely. If the choice is between official partner tools and fan made tools, the fan made tools are what needs to survive, not the partner tools.

Paizo is probable within their legal rights to do this, but this is not the attitude of the Paizo I have known and loved for almost ten years now. Old Paizo realized that the fan made tools were what made them a success.

(edit: fixed minor typo)

TheCowardlyLion wrote:

… i dont think P1 was built to oppose anything. I think it was just made so Paizo could stay in business.

100% this.

At the time, Paizo was publishing content under the OGL using the 3.5 rules, and recognized that if people were going to buy and play these products, there needed to be an in-print rules system that was getting ongoing support. Because tying your brand to another company's core rulebooks that are going to become harder and harder to find as time goes on is not the way to grow your fan base. And while the first version of Pathfinder could have just been a word-for-word reprint of the 3.5 SRD, the fact that "the patient was already open" made for a great opportunity to tinker with mechanics that the previous 9 years of using them had revealed to be less than optimized.

The fact that a large majority of the gaming community was uninterested in moving on from the 3.5 core game they loved, and chose Pathfinder over 4E, was merely good fortune.

But gamers love edition wars and the narrative has taken on more of an oppositional tone than reflected reality since the earliest days of the Pathfinder playtest. C'est la vie.

With all due respect, it feels a bit dismissive to diminish people's concerns about a license change that may well destroy their livelihoods or years (decades) of work to "edition wars" (which really isn't what's being discussed here anyway).

And while it may not have been your experience (somehow?), my experience of the 4e rollout out was more oppositional at the time than looking back, because people were genuinely terrified of losing something they loved. 4e wasn't published under OGL, and under the new terms independent creators (like Paizo) wouldn't be able to exist. Very similar to OGL and now this.

Et tu, Brute?

With all due respect, it feels a bit dismissive to diminish people's concerns about a license change that may well destroy their livelihoods or years (decades) of work to "edition wars" (which really isn't what's being discussed here anyway).

Good thing he wasn't then, as that was entirely about the 3.5 to PF changeover and not addressing the license update of today.

Mark Moreland wrote:

As you mention, Archives of Nethys has a commercial license to operate and maintain a rules reference for the community, and part of this change is to ensure that that license (and those of other partners) actually means something, because someone else can't end-around that license by combining the OGL/ORC with the Community Use Policy and do the exact same thing.

I think this quote is the source of a lot of the problems. I've thought it was a bad thing each time Paizo announced a partnership, because it made this sort of nonsense seem much more likely. If the choice is between official partner tools and fan made tools, the fan made tools are what needs to survive, not the partner tools.

Paizo is probable within their legal rights to do this, but this is not the attitude of the Paizo I have known and loved for almost ten years now. Old Paizo realized that the fan made tools were what made them a success.

Agree. Part of my issue with all of this is that while Foundry is OK with their own partner license, the changes made to the licensing for everyone else prevents the next Foundry or similar tool. The PF2e/SF/PF1e systems on foundry are products of love from the community that were developed under the CUP and OGL/ORC. The pf2e system on foundry alone has probably over a million dollars of development time volunteered to it, and was all made possible because the community came together. Under the new licensing structure you aren't going to get a random group of people together and go for a commercial license to start the next Foundry or similar.

[...] because someone else can't end-around that license by combining the OGL/ORC with the Community Use Policy and do the exact same thing

Before you could combine the CUP and OGL/ORC and not profit from it. The value of a commercial license was commercialization. The changes have now made it so the value of a commercial license is the IP and broader commercial freedom than granted under the new, lesser licenses.

Years ago Paizo discontinued my favorite game, Pathfinder Adventure Card game which they published, and I've since watched license after license issued to new boardgames, cardgames, and companies. To me its clear Paizo has shifted a focus on more licensing so wanting to make those commercial licenses stronger makes sense, from a purely a business perspective, if you never step outside to interact with community made tools. Or forgetting how many of these commercial/special licenses started out as community made tools.

Separately, the other changes to funnel and silo everyone into the Infinite license Agreement makes sense from a business perspective. As i said before, its a great business idea. It's just not the Paizo I know. Some of these license changes are necessary to separate Paizo from the OGL, I get that. But to not recognize the kind of efforts the community have done and remove the avenue for projects like the next Foundry is a slap in the face.

I've got nothing but love for all of the individual employees at Paizo, and I hate being so critical, but it feels like the company has shifted its priorities away from the community that helped it grow. The passion and dedication of fans who created and maintained tools under the CUP were fundamental to Paizo's success. While these changes might be beneficial from a business standpoint, it feels like a betrayal to those who have invested so much time and effort into creating valuable, free resources for the community.

The volunteer Foundry PF2E dev team is pretty much the best thing to ever happen to Paizo in terms of an outside force boosting the growth and retention of their fan and customer base. And while today that effort has a custom license, it was originally developed under CUP. It could not have been developed under this new policy.

This change is shortsighted because by removing the CUP, you’re pre-emptively killing the “pf2e on foundry”s of tomorrow, fan projects that will deeply benefit your own bottom line. This won’t just hurt fans Mark, it will wind up hurting Paizo too.

The volunteer Foundry PF2E dev team is pretty much the best thing to ever happen to Paizo in terms of an outside force boosting the growth and retention of their fan and customer base. And while today that effort has a custom license, it was originally developed under CUP. It could not have been developed under this new policy.

This change is shortsighted because by removing the CUP, you’re pre-emptively killing the “pf2e on foundry”s of tomorrow, fan projects that will deeply benefit your own bottom line. This won’t just hurt fans Mark, it will wind up hurting Paizo too.

Exactly, when pf3e comes around, or the finder verse system or whatever it's going to be, there will be no community tools.

All it will be is an empty corporate husk. There won't be a community to contribute and volunteer hundreds of hours, because the only legal option is to start as a corporate entity now.

Redeux has the right of it. Just like WotC looked the gift horse of the 00s in the mouth by attempting to monetize the OGL, having forgot how it made them relevant, Paizo, by purging the CUP in this way, has made it clear they forgot what made them great.

D&D5e has a considerable amount of market significance and embedded D&D Beyond users, but it's their market supremacy, not the fact that they're license restricts community tools that makes them strong.

The best D&D tools are illegal, because the official ones always miss something important.

Just to be clear--as someone who's not an expert on this stuff and hasn't been following along--what about the new license would prevent Foundry if not for Foundry's partner status? Is it the fact that it's not sold on Pathfinder Infinite? What does that mean, practically speaking? Could a version of "the next Foundry" simply be released via Infinite, or is that not tenable?

Obviously, "the next Foundry" wouldn't be allowed to host both OGL and Golarion content at the same time--no aboleths fighting priests of Desna--but would it go further than that?

Sorry if these are dumb questions! I'm not a lawyer, and I want to be sure I understand what we're really talking about.

The OGL vs ORC thing is just a convenient excuse. They are also gutting their Community Use Policy, and now Infinite products can't be released under OGL vs ORC. So they're funneling all their content into Infinite but want to say "mine mine mine".

Yes, it matters a lot that they are shoving people into the walled garden of Infinite. Paizo gets a cut of it. An unearned, unnecessary, undue cut. Plenty of us saw this coming from miles away when they announced Infinite originally.

I miss the "founders in charge" era... Paizo used to be such a wonderful company by and for gamers that cared about community, actually cared about open gaming, and operated at a human scale. Heck, now there's not even a "who works here" page anymore!

AND this whole thread and debacle are filled with misconceptions. Like the "sell your creations" thing in the original post: you always could. They were your own creations. And Paizo couldn't prohibit them before. But now they "graciously" allow you to do something you always could. (And you couldn't before, and still can't, directly use their own images, etc.) To deny fan art, wow... That's Margaret Weis levels of delusion to think that fanworks must be licensed. (I pick her name explicitly because she's the grandmother of the whole false idea that you need a license to make a compatible product or say, "This works with that.")

I personally am glad that Paizo's leadership remains fluid and not stagnant. I don't think the company would benefit from being headed by the exact same people into eternity. I do feel concerned about these changes, though.

Just to be clear--as someone who's not an expert on this stuff and hasn't been following along--what about the new license would prevent Foundry if not for Foundry's partner status? Is it the fact that it's not sold on Pathfinder Infinite? What does that mean, practically speaking? Could a version of "the next Foundry" simply be released via Infinite, or is that not tenable?

It's deeply untenable because PFI isn't made for software distribution. As soon as you want things like automatic updates or being able to select addons from inside the app (which are at this point just basic requirements most people expect out of software) you need an actual software distribution channel.

Thank you for your answer! Then yes, I don't think this seems like a reasonable change. It's definitely not a positive one for the community, at any rate, whether or not it's unavoidable.

I am still waiting to get more information and see what Paizo's response to the backlash looks like, but I do want to make my voice heard about this. In a vacuum, not knowing all the details and not faulting Mark for having to juggle a lot of hats at once right now, I don't think it's reasonable (as a legal decision) to rationalize a severe narrowing of access entirely with "well, these companies have a special agreement with us, so they get to fastlane past all these restrictions". I am certainly glad to know that Foundry isn't in any jeopardy, and I appreciate Mark clarifying that, but I don't think specifically privileging a handful of partners over the rest of the community is ever the ideal situation.

I am concerned over the license changes and how it affects the wider Paizo and TTRPG community. I think that a single employee's assurances that this or that case is fine and good are welcome, but I wish that Mr. Moreland didn't have to do this in the first place - it should be crystal clear in the license as to what is and is not allowed. Uncertainty is beneficial to the entity making the license it seems, and harmful to the fans it claims to be for.

I sincerely hope things can be clarified soon. I'm afraid that I don't want to purchase Player Core 2 for the time being because I don't want to show support for this policy or its abrupt implementation. Hopefully we get updates after GenCon about how things are going to change, and then I'll be happy to continue supporting Paizo's work.

Why Paizo doesn't do changes like this during The Gap is beyond me...

Paizo gets a cut of it. An unearned, unnecessary, undue cut.

Who’s IP, system, and setting are you using?

I miss the "founders in charge" era

Lisa and Vic? Yeah i dont miss them at all.

To deny fan art,

where was this stated?

I've done plenty of moralizing and threatening here but you know what? That's not especially productive if I want answers, so this is my attempt to open an actual dialogue. Is Paizo at all open to the idea of reintroducing most of the freedoms these changes (especially the revokation of the CUP) destroyed, or are these decisions absolute and final? Additionally, what justifiable reason was there to begin with to roll out these changes so abruptly, and with no input from the community that they affect so much?

Submitted my sub cancellations. We'll see how this shakes out and if I want to continue supporting things.