|
No, the difference being that WotC gave permission to copy DnD, but not some of those monsters.Does anyone think it's ironic, this is being argued by a guy who works and supports a company that copied Dungeons and Dragons?
I'm not talking about copyright law. I'm talking about copying.
Exactly. As I said above: It's like having a neighbor who says you can borrow any of the tools in his garage, at any time, no need to ask... and you borrow his car without asking.
(Oh, and in case you didn't know, I helped create 3E D&D. There are spells in the PH that I wrote. There are monsters in the Monster Manual that I wrote. I worked at TSR before the Wizards of the Coast buyout. I playtested 3E in Monte Cook's home playtest. I discussed the positives and negatives of the OGL with Ryan Dancey. I'm not some kid fresh off the bus who's walked up and nabbed D&D for my own purposes. I've been working in the tabletop RPG industry since 2nd edition AD&D, and playing since basic D&D. So go ahead and make jokes about "copying" D&D; it's my D&D that I'm "copying." Sheesh! Whippersnappers!)
Oh I know. I just thought it was interesting that you were focusing on the act of copying, instead of the legality, and pathfinder is built on copying. Also, if we are skipping the legal parts and getting to whether the fact that copying is wrong or right, I'm sure even though you can legally use 3.5, the owners are not happy that they are not getting paid for their work when the Core Rules sells another copy. Shouldn't that be taken into account, just like you are taking into account the original designer of the beholder who is not getting paid?
|
The act of copying that we've been arguing about has been copying without permission. With beholders and other product identity you could even say people have been explicitly asked not to copy or been denied permission to copy.
What you are talking about is beside the point. You are comparing apples to oranges. The SRD is permission to copy and an invitation to copy.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/srdfaq/20040123c
Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?A: Sure.
Q: Could I publish the whole thing?
A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try.
{Do you mind fleshing out what contexts make copying moral? Bestiality isn't a great comparator because it is pretty much always immoral until you get into corner cases like furries, and weird scifi with intelligent aliens capable of informed consent.}
I'm not arguing that copying is moral. You're the one saying if "it's not illegal, it's not immoral."
Julie Guthrie's eyebeast has a seven eyesstalks on top, multiple small eyes embedded in its spherical body, three big tentacles underneath, and a couple of eyestalks mixed in with the underside-tentacles. The 3E Monster Manual description of a beholder is "an 8-foot-wide orb dominated by a central eye and a large, toothy maw. Ten smaller eyes on stalks sprout from the top of the orb."
* Is the eyebeast a spherical eye-monster with eyestalks? Yes.
* Does it have ten eyestalks on top? No.
* Does a beholder have additional small eyes embedded in its orb? No.
* Does a beholder have eyestalks underneath its body? No.
To a person who knows what a beholder is, is an eyebeast a beholder? No... they're similar, but not the same, in the same way that a drider is similar to a manscorpion (humanoid upper body, arachnid lower body) but the two are not the same (drider is a spider below, manscorpion is a scorpion below, manscorpion has a tail,...
A good point. Thanks Sean for your reply and clarification. I don't know all that much about the DnD fauna myself, so to me kickstarter sculpts and the eyebeast both look like a beholder. The main difference i see if that the reaper sculpt is better.
I really don't need to nitpick with Andrew. Andrew knew he was copying monsters from D&D. He can't deny that. And although Wizards said, "here are hundreds of monsters from our game, copy these all you want, but we're keeping a few monsters for ourselves, don't copy them," Andrew chose to make miniatures of those monsters Wizards reserved for themselves.
Now, I spent about 4 seconds this morning browsing Reaper's site, and found just as many other sculpts that were clearly D&D monsters, but Sean has consistently brushed off such comparisons as not being germane to the discussion. It makes me kind of think that where he is drawing HIS line has a bit to do with not wanting to insult famous sculptors or big companies he is doing business with.
Who said D&D monsters were the issue?
The issue was clearly D&D monsters that were not in the OGL.You also failed to list monsters that were not in the OGL that were directly copied* that SKR defended for someone else.
*Obviously the same monster, and not just an inspiration.
I'm not talking about copyright law. I'm talking about copying.
So how is it that some copying is OK (say, Reaper's oh-so-obvious clones of some monsters) but other copying (this stuff) isn't?
I mean, it's not as if Reaper's intent was anything but providing a changed-just-enough-to-avoid-issues copy of the monsters in question?
Further, how does one reconcile the afore-linked Jaws picture with the copy of it on the comic cover, substituting a goblin for the shark? It's still a copy.
So go ahead and make jokes about "copying" D&D; it's my D&D that I'm "copying." Sheesh! Whippersnappers!)
So, was it Rob Liefield's X-Force that he was copying?
Brian, I've already covered my reasons in various replies above. It's a matter of "you can have that, but we're keeping this for ourselves," "how close is too close," and "no I'm not copying anything well yes I am nudge nudge wink wink."
|
I don't know but thought it a good point about DnD to Pathfinder.
OGL ok...
All I know is from this statement they didn't really think someone would....publish....
"Q: Can I use the SRD verbatim?
A: Sure.
Q: Could I publish the whole thing?
A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try."
Especially from the Wizards guy standing with a look of kill, specifically at a person in the Pathfinder booth, when the Core book was first published at Gencon.
So I suspect that while the OGL makes it ok I bet you they didn't think it would go in the direction it did go in.
Is that ok? I don't know I just remember that look he was giving. The look really stuck but if memory serves he had a cane standing there. That look will last me. SO while it may "be my" DnD according to Sean I know someone felt shafted.
SO all comes to opinion. WHich really comes to Law as well. Which is why "court rulings" get overturned all the time.
Its all opinion based on a person's feeling at the time. Usually gets changed down the road.....in fact constantly chagning.
That is why laws always need to be "stretched" then "reeled back in" occasionally.
Any ways just my opinion. Personally I passed on that Kickstarter. Didn't like the mini's the way they looked...once again my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sean, I am stunned. I never meant this discussion to become what it has. Someone is finally making these figures, which is enough for me. Would you be more comfortable with Andrews sculpts if they had slighty more skewed names or +/- eye stalks? Is that really the minutia that should be focused on?
That stuff isn't minutia, though. That stuff is exactly what could be the difference between a successful and unsuccessful lawsuit.
I also am a person who has worked a good deal with copyright.
It is true that ideas cannot be protected. But expression of ideas, is. That means that you cannot copyright the idea of a big, round, flying thing with a lot of eyes. But WoTC's expression of it, with a particular set number of eyestalks, a particular specific look, and a familiar and specific name, is the expression that is copyrighted.
Come too close to those things, and you are begging for trouble. Reaper and some other companies get away with something in the ballpark because their creations have names nowhere near the same as the original, have different numbers of eyestalks, contain other elements that are different, such as eyes covering the bodies of the beasties, and additional stalks that look like legs, holding the models up. There is significant difference, that they can claim to be using the idea, but not copying the expression.
But the other thing that Sean is talking about isn't law, and needn't be. It is originality and integrity. As an artist, as a creative person, I, and I suspect Sean, have a great deal of respect for people who want to strive to do something different, or to express something of their own. I like beholders maybe even more than the next guy, but if I ever did a take on something, I would want it to scream ME! and not be so beholden (get it?) to somebody else's work.
There are principles involved here. Integrity at stake. It's true there's nothing new under the sun, but there IS still uniqueness and originality to be had in expressing ourselves. It's a brand new world of copying and reproducing, and disseminating, and spreading things around the world with the click of a button. It may seem like integrity is passe in this world, but actually we need it now, more than ever.
Well, the kickstarter was a roaring success and I'll be getting some sweet figs in a few months. I understand the stance on artist integrity, but I also stand behind supply and demand. He has the supply, I have the demand. If WotC takes umbridge then I'll have to settle for some other figs. That's just the way it is sometime
The glabrezu name and stat block is part of the OGL, anyone can use it for RPGs.
The glabrezu PICTURE is not part of the OGL. Nobody can use the WotC version except WotC.
That's why the Paizo glabrezu art is different than the WotC art—nobody can use the WotC art, so we had to make something similar that fits the game stats of the monster (big teeth, pair of pincer arms, pair of regular arms), but not the same. So Paizo's art is not a "perfect copy" of the WotC art.
The Wizkids treachery demon miniature is based on Paizo's art of the glabrezu. So that mini is not a "perfect plastic miniature copy of a glabrezu demon." It's a perfect plastic copy of Paizo's art.
So your premise and points are false and/or invalid.
As for why the miniature is called "treachery demon" instead of "glabrezu," I think that's because using the OGL name for the mini would mean we'd have to include the OGL on the miniature itself.
And you're ignoring that while Pathfinder may be based on D&D 3E (and therefore a "copy/modification of the intellectual ideas and work of another company),
1) WotC gave everyone permission to do so,
2) WotC held back a few things that they didn't want to share,
3) Paizo has respected WotC's choice to not share certain things, both by not just copying the held-back monsters without permission and by not making almost-exactly-the-same versions of those held-back monsters,
and
4) Andy has not respected WotC's choice. He chose to copy the things that WotC specifically asked people not to copy.
So my position (and Paizo's position) is not hypocritical at all. If you can't understand the difference between copying something with permission and copying something without permission, I don't know how I can make it clearer.
I think both this kickstarter and the Demons & Devils kickstarter received letters or emails from WoTC.
And the Chibi mini's did too. (Including the Marillith, which strangely Reaper didn't)
|
You are hypocritical. May I quote your sentence
"Robert, why are you so ardent about defending someone who has blatantly copied someone else's work?" (Sean K Reynolds)
So you are attacking this guy because he copied someone else work but ignore the fact that you and your company does the same in a very big style. The existance and success of Paizo is grounded in copying concepts from other designers.
Its irrelevant if WotC made a mistake to allow you to use the OGL or not and paizo was in the lucky positition to take advantage of it. I bet that WotC today regrets their allowance deeply and would love to take back the OGL. But thats also irrelevant.
What IS relevant and what IS fact is that your business is based on copying 3x D&D stuff, its rules, monsters, some of the typical D&D gods, their demons (sometimes its a 100% copy like Asmodeus and sometimes you cleverly call them other names like you did with apsu etc.) and so on. The list is endless.
So really: what moral right do you have to accuse others to "copy someone else´s work?" You seem to confuse morality with legality.
I would recommend: enjoy the bad business decision WotC made years ago by letting Paizo free copy their IP stuff, but its not your business to attack other copycats.
Morality and legality are pretty close in this case. WotC basically said:
Everyone can use the core of our rules system (OGL) and do with it whatever they want (other games, adventures, settings). Everything else (some monsters, settings, newer classes feats etc.) is ours and only we can use it.Paizo was, just like mongoose (Conan), green ronin and other companies allowed to use the OGL, that makes them legally and morally right (also, some of the designers from paizo worked for WotC, so they may be copying material from another company but not necessarily from other designers).
Someone who uses the material WotC expilitly didn't put on the table for everyone to use does something very different.
Also, your example isn't the best one: Asmodeus
|
Its irrelevant if WotC made a mistake to allow you to use the OGL or not and paizo was in the lucky positition to take advantage of it. I bet that WotC today regrets their allowance deeply and would love to take back the OGL. But thats also irrelevant.
You seem to be putting a spin on the relationship between Paizo and WoTC in order to make Paizo look more like this miniature kickstarter.
What isn't irrelevant is that WoTC gave permission for anyone to use specific material in their businesses or for personal use. It wasn't like they created the OGL and then Paizo found a loop hole and built a business. Paizo did what WoTC intended.
1. Paizo had complete permission to use the OGL in their product.
2. This kickstarter did not have permission to use the WoTC material in his product.
I don't find it hypocritical at all for someone who lives in #1 to be critical of someone who lives in #2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I repeat: If you can't understand the difference between copying something WITH PERMISSION and copying something WITHOUT PERMISSION, I don't know how I can make it clearer.
And I think you need to tone down your language, Enpeze. You are violating the Most Important Rule of the Paizo messageboards: don't be a jerk.
Also, Asmodeus is a devil, not a demon, and he existed in Earth lore thousands of years before WotC, therefore (as feytharn pointed out), Asmodeus is not one of "their" creations.
I think something may have happened with this. Did Wizards issue a C&D? The comment section on the Kickstarter is rather long but a few comments seem to suggest that some sort of reworking of the models is happening.
Apparently so - See this update:
Recently, Wizards of the Coast contacted me and asked me to remove or modify several monsters from the core set, as they felt they were too close to their own monsters. Not wanting to fight, I agreed that I would change the appearance of the monsters under contention.
The hypocrisy in this thread astounds me.
Paizo did what WoTC intended.
No. Certainly not.
Q: Could I publish the whole thing?
A: Sure. If you think someone would be willing to pay for it, you're more than welcome to try.
Does it sound like they expected another company to reprint 3.5 rules and sell it successfully?
No. They didn't intend for the OGL to be used this way.They didn't intend to let another company compete against their next D&D edition, and take a large part of the market, by capitalizing on the work WOTC did for their previous edition.
Paizo has the legal permission to do what it does. Does it have the heartfelt blessing of WOTC and of the designers of 3.0/3.5 who didn't join Paizo ? No.
Is it more morally acceptable to copy something thanks to an oversight of the original company, than to copy something without its permission ? I don't think so, and I think it is hypocritical to say otherwise.
That being said, I don't think plagiarism and copying someone else's work is immoral, as long as it doesn't prevent creation. I think that TSR being sued for the hobbits, the balrogs and cthulhu mythos in the early books was not deserved. What paizo does is okay, even though WOTC doesn't like it, but what andrew did is too.
By the way, the beholder's creators, Gygax and Theron Kuntz, are not part of WOTC. If we ignore legal aspects, they're the ones whose agreement matter, not WOTC.
You are violating the Most Important Rule of the Paizo messageboards: don't be a jerk.
Also, Asmodeus is a devil, not a demon, and he existed in Earth lore thousands of years before WotC, therefore (as feytharn pointed out), Asmodeus is not one of "their" creations.
See your "I don't need to nitpick with Andrew" post. It was pretty rude.
As for asmodeus, his writeup in D&D is a creation of TSR. The divide between demons and devils too.There's a reason why Paizo didn't call him Asmodai, have him help build the temple of Solomon, or why you didn't use another of the numerous "king of demons" like Baal. It's that you based yourself on the previous work done for D&D, not on old books and legends. Which is fine, but must be admitted.
The fact that WOTC can't own the name Asmodeus because various stories existed about that name before, doesn't make its D&D version less of a creation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. They didn't intend for the OGL to be used this way.
You weren't there. I was. You don't know what Ryan Dancey intended when he pushed the OGL, I did. Here's what he intended: that permission to make D&D-compatible material would never be decided by a team of lawyers with a lot of money and an agenda to stop people from making D&D-compatible material.
They didn't intend to let another company compete against their next D&D edition, and take a large part of the market, by capitalizing on the work WOTC did for their previous edition.
They didn't intend that, but Ryan certainly expected someone to try.
Paizo has the legal permission to do what it does. Does it have the heartfelt blessing of WOTC and of the designers of 3.0/3.5 who didn't join Paizo ? No.
I don't think you are authorized to speak on behalf of Wizards of the Coast. And Monte Cook's introduction to the PFRPG Core Rulebook is on page 4.
Is it more morally acceptable to copy something thanks to an oversight of the original company, than to copy something without its permission? I don't think so, and I think it is hypocritical to say otherwise.
I don't see how it's an "oversight" when a team of WotC lawyers scrutinized the OGL before approving it.
That being said, I don't think plagiarism and copying someone else's work is immoral,
That certainly says a lot about you. What have you written, that we may tell people that you think plagiarism isn't immoral?
I think that TSR being sued for the hobbits, the balrogs and cthulhu mythos in the early books was not deserved.
I am pretty sure there was no lawsuit about TSR was using the names "hobbit" and "balrog," it probably was just a sternly-worded letter. And I know for a fact they weren't sued over the Cthulhu mythos.
What paizo does is okay, even though WOTC doesn't like it, but what andrew did is too.
1. I don't think you are a lawyer and therefore don't get to decide whether or not Andrew's use of WotC IP is "okay." I'm not a lawyer, either, but when I was at TSR I worked with the staff lawyer about issues of whether or not people were violating TSR's IP.
2. According to an update on Andrew's kickstarter, WotC sent him a letter telling him to remove certain monsters from his kickstarter, so clearly they don't think it is "okay."By the way, the beholder's creators, Gygax and Theron Kuntz, are not part of WOTC. If we ignore legal aspects, they're the ones whose agreement matter, not WOTC.
No.
When Kuntz gave Gygax permission to publish the beholder, he gave up or sold his rights to Gygax, so Kuntz has no say in the matter.Gygax sold all rights to D&D to Lorraine Williams in the 1980s, so Gygax has no say in the matter.
And WotC bought TSR.
Thus, the rights to beholders belong to WotC. You can't say "ignore legal aspects," as IP rights are legal aspects.
There's a reason why Paizo didn't call him Asmodai,
Asmodeus/Asmodai are established variant names that predate TSR.
have him help build the temple of Solomon,
Yes, and it's because the temple of Solomon doesn't exist in Paizo's campaign setting. It's the same reason why Paizo's mentions of Cthulhu don't say his city is under the Pacific Ocean and why its mentions of other Mythos monsters don't mention Earth locations.
or why you didn't use another of the numerous "king of demons" like Baal.
Baalzebul is on page 19 of Book of the Damned: Princes of Darkness.
It's that you based yourself on the previous work done for D&D, not on old books and legends.
Actually, it's both. With permission.
Which is fine, but must be admitted.
Which we do, all the time. And I'm not just talking about the copy of the OGL printed in every gaming book we do, which clearly states "based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams," as well as "System Reference Document © 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc."
All of which is irrelevant to Andrew deliberately copying the things Wizards specifically decided to keep out of the OGL because they didn't want anyone to copy them.
|
Sean got a question for you and I apolagise if you have already answerd it I notice one of the monsters removed due to the cease and desist was the wolf in sheep's clothing just wondering why that had to be removed since I thought it would be okay (Paizo did put it in a monster book of there own after all.)
|
|
Sean got a question for you and I apolagise if you have already answerd it I notice one of the monsters removed due to the cease and desist was the wolf in sheep's clothing just wondering why that had to be removed since I thought it would be okay (Paizo did put it in a monster book of there own after all.)Tome of Horrors from Necromancer had permission to update and publish it under the OGL. This allows Paizo, and other 3PP, to use content that would otherwise be non-OGC.
Of course, I could be mistaken.
Yeah I get that I'm just wondering why the model itself would be a problem?
I don't know, but perhaps they felt it looked too similar to a specific piece of their art?
For example, Paizo's glabrezu looks a little different than the WotC glabrezu because only the glabrezu's stats and a general description are in the OGL, not the specific look of it, so Paizo's glabrezu art is based party on what's in the OGL and party on Paizo's additions to its description (probably by James Jacobs). And the WizKids mini is based on the Paizo art, not the Wizards art.
No, it's not copying without permission when you copy with permission.
Exactly, Joana.
(I can't believe we're still debating this point.)
Well, I wrote a long post, I spent maybe an hour thinking how to be flippant but polite, and exhaustive, and clear-cut in my explanations. Then, as I was almost finished, I scrolled the page to check if I didn't forget something, got back down, and pressed backspace to rewrite my last sentence. It sent me back to the previous page. This forum doesn't let my browser keep in memory the text in the reply form. It's making me frown. Especially because for the same reason, I had to retype this post too.
Okay. I think it can be summed up by answering SKR's last post.
We're still debating this point because you're contradicting one of your earlier posts.
I'm not talking about copyright law. I'm talking about copying... just because there isn't a law against something doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Copying someone else's work is wrong, even if there's no legal consequence (such as a violation of copyright law) for doing so.
Paizo is copying someone else's work and selling it. They don't violate copyright law, because of the OGL.
It wasn't the intent behind the OGL, as we agree, despite lawyers. They have the legal permission, but not the moral blessing of WOTC.Of course, one could argue that WOTC has only a legal say, and no moral one, because it's not the actual creator. Cook, Williams and Tweet have been paid and are no longer part of the company. But that also applies to the beholder's creators, though.
And since none of us are not talking about copyright law, what Paizo's doing and what Andrew tried to do are morally comparable. And Sean K. Reynolds, you would be hypocritical to say that he did wrong, morally speaking.
{We're still debating this point because you're contradicting one of your earlier posts.}
No, I'm not. :)
{It wasn't the intent behind the OGL, as we agree}
I agree to no such thing.
{They have the legal permission, but not the moral blessing of WOTC.}
False.
{And since none of us are not talking about copyright law, what Paizo's doing and what Andrew tried to do are morally comparable.}
No, because one is copying WITH permission, and the other is copying WITHOUT permission. One is borrowing your dad's car after he said you COULD borrow it anytime, the other is borrowing your dad's car when he specifically said you COULD NOT borrow it.
{And Sean K. Reynolds, you would be hypocritical to say that he did wrong, morally speaking.}
No.
Wizards: You can copy all of this other stuff as much as you want, but not these ten things.
Andrew: I'm copying five of those things you said not to.
Andrew has abused the generosity of Wizards of the Coast. That's wrong. He specifically copied things they didn't give permission to copy. That's wrong.
And I am no hypocrite for saying so, nor would anyone else using the OGL being a hypocrite for saying so. And if you don't understand that, then you don't understand what "wrong," "permission," and "hypocrite" mean.
You did agree.
They didn't intend to let another company compete against their next D&D edition, and take a large part of the market, by capitalizing on the work WOTC did for their previous edition.They didn't intend that
WOTC made the OGL with the understanding that it'll allow 3rd-party publishers and non-commercial groups to publish additional material for their own game, making it sell more in the process. Players and DMs, WOTC and the other companies, everyone was supposed to be better off. But that's not what Paizo is doing.
Despite their lawyers, WOTC didn't take into account that while it reduced the competition for 3.0 and 3.5 (their "generous" intent), it could allow more competition against 4e (not their intent).That's why you can't claim the permission of WOTC, beyond the strict application of the copyright law.
It's like if the kid got the permission to use the car anytime, with the understanting that it's still owned by his dad. Then dad bought a new one, the kid left home, and took the old car (well he redid the paint, cleaned the engine and added accessories) against his dad's wishes. Except that the dad in this case can't go back on his formal permission to use the car "anytime", regardless of the fact that he isn't happy about losing control over it.
Then the other kid borrows the new car after being told not to.
Who's most in the wrong ? The father isn't happy about either.
That's the meaning of the permission to copy you have.
You said that copyright law nonwithstanding, copying is wrong.
You didn't make an exception for copying with permission, but it's understood that copying with permission is okay to you.
Problem is, the only permission you can claim for PF's core rules come under copyright law, and not from the good will of WOTC.
And copyright law is not the point. So your copying should be wrong too.
Seriously, did you guys go ask WOTC for its blessing when you decided to make Pathfinder ? Monte Cook did write something for you, but he was no longer in the company. Did they come over to pat you guys on the back and said "we hoped you'd do something like that" ? Maybe at some convention, if your offices are too far apart ?
Andrew tried to do something illegal (probably, I'm not a judge), Paizo did not. That doesn't mean that Andrew was wrong and Paizo is right.
|
|
Andrew tried to do something illegal (probably, I'm not a judge), Paizo did not. That doesn't mean that Andrew was wrong and Paizo is right.
And nothing about these two sentences strikes you as wrong or misguided??
Bottom line is that this KS was in violation of the OGL, or at the very least interpreted as being in violation by the only folks who matter in this case. That would be WotC, who are the only ones who can really state if something violates the use of their property as per the OGL.
Not Sean.
Not you.
If they thought that the PFRPG violated the use of the content that was allowed by the OGL, I'm sure they would have had legal council contact Paizo as well. As far as I am aware, they have not.
You did agree.
Touché.
WOTC made the OGL with the understanding that it'll allow 3rd-party publishers and non-commercial groups to publish additional material for their own game, making it sell more in the process. Players and DMs, WOTC and the other companies, everyone was supposed to be better off. But that's not what Paizo is doing.Ryan wanted the OGL to make sure that people would always have a common ruleset to play D&D.
From the very beginning, people have been worried "What if they try to take away the OGL, what'll that do to 3rd-party publishers?" and the answer was always "nothing, the OGL is eternal, 100 years from now people can still be publishing for it even if the official D&D rules are very different." This was always built into the concept of the OGL.
Despite their lawyers, WOTC didn't take into account that while it reduced the competition for 3.0 and 3.5 (their "generous" intent), it could allow more competition against 4e (not their intent).
Not true, WotC wanted other publishers to switch to 4E, but the 4E GSL's terms weren't anywhere nearly as 3PP-friendly, so most publishers stuck with 3E.
That's why you can't claim the permission of WOTC, beyond the strict application of the copyright law.
I don't see how you can argue that they didn't give permission for it when they [i]deliberately released the entire ruleset under the OGL. If they just wanted people to use the rules and not be able to republish them, the OGL and the SRD would have been set up differently, in that you'd be able to reference the content but not reprint it.
It's like if the kid got the permission to use the car anytime, with the understanting that it's still owned by his dad. Then dad bought a new one, the kid left home, and took the old car (well he redid the paint, cleaned the engine and added accessories) against his dad's wishes.
No, not "against his dad's wishes," it's more of a "I can't believe my kid has grown up, left home, and doesn't want to have a curfew any more" thing. Oh, and the dad consulted a lawyer and wrote up a contract stating the kid had the legal right to use the car any time, forever.
Except that the dad in this case can't go back on his formal permission to use the car "anytime", regardless of the fact that he isn't happy about losing control over it.
Then the dad shouldn't have consulted with lawyers and created a legal contract stating otherwise, he should have just stuck to verbal permission so he still had full control over the car if he changed his mind.
Then the other kid borrows the new car after being told not to.
Who's most in the wrong ?
The kid who did what he was expressly told NOT to do is the most wrong. The first kid actually had permission, the second did not.
The father isn't happy about either.
The dad was quite happy with the first kid when his permission-to-borrow-the-car-contract required the kid to say "my dad is awesome, he let me borrow this car, thanks, dad, you're great!" every time he used the car.
Problem is, the only permission you can claim for PF's core rules come under copyright law, and not from the good will of WOTC.
I repeat: if WotC didn't want people to copy the entire ruleset, they shouldn't have put the entire ruleset under the OGL.
And copyright law is not the point. So your copying should be wrong too.
Sure it is. We're talking about permission to copy. Andrew didn't have permission to copy beholders and such. Paizo and other publishers DID have permission to copy the OGL. Pretty simple.
Seriously, did you guys go ask WOTC for its blessing when you decided to make Pathfinder ?
The OGL doesn't say anything about asking for permission. Necromancer Games didn't have to ask to make the Tome of Horrors. Monte didn't have to ask to make the Book of Eldritch Might. Green Ronin didn't have to ask to make Mutants and Masterminds. Paizo didn't have to ask to make Rise of the Runelords.
Monte Cook did write something for you, but he was no longer in the company.
You need to make up your mind whether "the original creators" have to give blessing or not, earlier in this thread you were saying that mattered, now you're dismissing it because "he was no longer in the company."
Did they come over to pat you guys on the back and said "we hoped you'd do something like that" ? Maybe at some convention, if your offices are too far apart ?
You seem to think that the two companies are enemies. Jason (lead designer of PF) and Mike Mearls (lead designer of 4E) are good friends. And there are people at WotC that I worked with at TSR and have known for almost 20 years.
Andrew tried to do something illegal (probably, I'm not a judge), Paizo did not. That doesn't mean that Andrew was wrong and Paizo is right.
So you're agreeing that Andrew tried to do something illegal, but you're implying he may not be in the wrong.
And you're saying that Paizo didn't try to do something illegal, but you're implying they are in the wrong.That's a very strange mindset.
I removed a comment about Gygax. It's insulting, and it's not relevant to the discussion about this kickstarter.