hephaistos_official's page

I want to bolster what DMurnett has said above.

For better or for worse, Starfinder's rules are much more tightly coupled with its setting than Pathfinder. The SF2e playtest demonstrates this perfectly. For example, the names of 11 of the 48 heritages across all ancestries in the Starfinder Playtest Rulebook contain Reserved Material (as defined by the ORC); for comparison, none of the ancestral heritages in the Pathfinder Player Core are named after Reserved Material. As another example, the names and descriptions of 7 of the 21 armor models in the SF Playtest contain Reserved Material, compared with 0 of the 12 armor in PF Player Core (excluding "No Armor" in both cases).

Kasatha, one of the core species, are named after their home planet Kasath. Kasath, being a location name, is Reserved Material under the ORC, and so Kasatha is a derived noun and hence also comes under Reserved Material. Sure, Paizo's own usage of the word starts with a lowercase "k" (i.e. kasatha), and I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion that is a logical argument that the usage of "kasatha" is not covered by the ORC.

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)?

hephaistos_official wrote:

The CUP doesn't exist anymore, and Hephaistos is an RPG product as defined by the Fan Content Policy so that doesn't apply either. This means that Hephaistos must now rely upon the OGL for Starfinder 1E content, and so existing content on the website must be sanitized to remove any Product Identity (as defined by the OGL). Is that correct? If so, is there a "grace period" for these changes to be made?

Yes, you have the basic understanding of it. There's no defined grace period, per se, but we also understand that changes of this nature take time, especially for community projects run by volunteers in their spare time. If you're making a good faith effort to scrub setting material from the resource, then that's good enough. If it's still there after months of no progress toward the end goal of compliance, that's a different issue.

Thank you for the clarification.

Hi, creator of Hephaistos here. Hephaistos is a fan-made website for Starfinder 1E where you can make and manage Characters, Starships, Mechs, NPCs and more for free, and so far it has relied upon the Community Use Policy. I want to double-check that I'm understanding the new licensing correctly:

The CUP doesn't exist anymore, and Hephaistos is an RPG product as defined by the Fan Content Policy so that doesn't apply either. This means that Hephaistos must now rely upon the OGL for Starfinder 1E content, and so existing content on the website must be sanitized to remove any Product Identity (as defined by the OGL). Is that correct? If so, is there a "grace period" for these changes to be made?

One of the requirements for publishing on Infinite using OGL content (Pathfinder 1E, Starfinder 1E and pre-remaster Pathfinder 2E) is to reproduce the OGL text and have other specific language on the title page as detailed here: https://help.pathfinderinfinite.com/hc/en-us/articles/12777431899927-Owners hip-and-License-Questions#h_01HF7865H0VY6VAVKDZKXQE2FK

Taking that into account, final submissions should have four pages: title page + two pages of content + OGL page. Is that correct?