There was a long stream early this morning that the YouTuber has the entire thing and goes through it:
https://youtu.be/L5st8RI4ads
The otyugh, after being renamed (trash beast?) would be hard for Wizards to claim ownership of the concept. Considering dianoga (tentacled trash dwelling monster) have been in Star Wars media (film, games, books, etc.) since 1977.
That doesn't mean that Wizards wouldn't try on a smaller company, basically a death by a million cuts.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sent a message about this as a possible story to a news organization (NPR). Perhaps someone will cover it and get the word out if we pester enough folks.
Oh, it's getting picked up by a TON of new agencies and magazines already, they just haven't finished/published the stories quite yet. From what I understand Rolling Stone, WIRED, NPR, MSNBC, and a bunch of other outlets have been in touch with individuals connected to the OGL leak as well as creators and publishers so over the next week or two we are likely to see a pretty big wave of media on the topic... but to be quite honest, I don't really expect them to have much of a scoop but rather be serving to help spread the word about what has already been learned/discovered but we might be in for a few surprises given that some of these outlets have resources that can help them get in touch with serious legal professionals who might be able to chime in on how it will/may be received by courts.
|
I'll be honest, part of me's just wondering how much panicking I should be doing right now...like, on the one hand they HAVE to be seeing the amount of negative press this is producing and want to mitigate that, yes, but they also have to be aware that even their most successful competitors don't have the money to go to court, so they may just bullishly go for it anyway, damn the lost sales.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet another instance of idiotic suits demonstrating to the world that they're utterly incompetent but somehow still getting paid more than the rest of us. This whole move is going to be catastrophically bad for D&D's long term profit, while simultaneously dragging their already beleaguered public image through a landfill and putting literally thousands of their best community advocates out of business.
To even consider making this move speaks volumes about just how unintelligent corporate "leaders" are, and how morally bankrupt they're okay with appearing.
...
Michael Sayre said that PF2e mostly has the OGL 1.0a so it has access to 'traditional' names (e.g. magic missile) and in case freelancers or other parties inadvertently inject 3.0 SRD material into Pathfinder 2e but that otherwise PF2e uses no SRD content.I think either there was a miscommunication or he's getting a lot of work out of the phrase "access to 'traditional' names", because PF2 in fact uses quite a lot of SRD monsters, for instance, that aren't in the public domain. Just glancing through the PF2 Bestiary, there's the aasimar, aboleth, barbazu, brain collector, chuul, drider, gelatinous cube, gelugon, gibbering mouther, glabrezu, kolyarut, lillend, mu spore, ochre jelly, otyugh, owlbear, quasit, remorhaz, roper, rust monster, tiefling, xorn... and it's entirely possible that I missed some. All of those are original to D&D and only available for use in Pathfinder because they're in the SRD.
Could Paizo just change the names? In many cases, sure; the concept of a person with some celestial or fiendish blood is generic enough that they can give the aasimar and tiefling different names and otherwise keep them pretty much as is, for instance. (And there are some monsters Paizo did change the names of between PF1 and PF2, like ankheg to ankhrav, sahuagin to sea devil, and troglodyte to xulgath.) But there are others, like the otyugh and the xorn, that are distinctive enough that even if they change the names their D&D origin is going to be obvious. Of course, Paizo could also change the descriptions, but there's a delicate balance to be struck there, because the closer they stay to the D&D concepts the more legal jeopardy it might put them in, but the farther they take the monsters from their original versions the more players might miss the originals. (The same goes for just removing those monsters entirely, which is of course another option; a lot of players like those monsters and would be disappointed to see them gone.)
G$+#!#n but it's good to see you again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think either there was a miscommunication or he's getting a lot of work out of the phrase "access to 'traditional' names"
You can read him for yourself, he was pretty clear.
D&D already keeps their most defensible IP to themselves and every word of PF2 was written from scratch. Many of the concepts (fighter, wizard, cleric, spell levels, feats, chromatic dragons, etc.) aren't legally distinct or defensible except under very specific trade dress protections that Paizo's work is all or mostly distinct from anyways, and game mechanics aren't generally copyrightable even if PF2's weren't all written from the ground up. Most of the monsters that touch WotC's trade dress protections (i.e. real-world monsters modified heavily enough to have a distinct WotC version that's legally protectable) have already been reworked or were just always presented as legally distinct versions that don't require the OGL, and things like Paizo's goblins have always been legally distinct for trade dress law and protected for many years despite being released as part of a system using the OGL.Considerations like keeping the game approachable for 3pp publishers, the legal costs of establishing a separate Paizo-specific license, concerns about freelancers not paying attention to key differences between Paizo and WotC IP, etc., all played a bigger role in PF2's continued use of the OGL than any need to keep the system under it. Not using the OGL was a serious consideration for PF2 but it would have significantly increased the costs related to releasing the new edition and meant that freelancer turnovers would have required an extra layer of scrutiny to make sure people weren't (unintentionally or otherwise) slipping their favorite D&Disms into Pathfinder products. It would have also meant all the 3pps needed to relearn a new license and produce their content under different licenses depending on the edition they were producing for, a level of complication deemed prohibitive to the health of the game.
I'm sure that they weighed the cost/benefit analysis of having to use the find and replace function on the text years ago.
some people pointed out (I think earlier in this thread) that this is also a threat to open source software, which plays a role in quite a big part of the economy.
the GNU GPL - the most well-known, but certainly not the only open source software license - doesn't have any clause allowing it to be revoked. And in fact it has gone through several versions already.
What the GPL does instead is that it disallows publishing under a lower version than what the original code was published under. So if someone publishes some software using GPL v3, you can't use that code in your own work and then publish your software under GPL v2. But if you derive new code based on code released under GPL v2 there is no requirement that you use GPL v3 for your new software - you can continue releasing it under GPL v2 if you wish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
opendnd
/signed
Good to see you too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll be honest, part of me's just wondering how much panicking I should be doing right now...like, on the one hand they HAVE to be seeing the amount of negative press this is producing and want to mitigate that, yes, but they also have to be aware that even their most successful competitors don't have the money to go to court, so they may just bullishly go for it anyway, damn the lost sales.If I am not mistaken some Star Wars rpg also falls under the old ogl. I don’t see them waging war with Disney.
Star Wars would have been their own license with Disney. Since they own the rules, the OGL was not needed for WotC (i.e. they don't have to license it to themselves). This also means that Star Wars is not covered by the OGL for others to use.
It does affect other parties' d20 licensed products (like both Stargate SG-1 RPG).
Stephen Glicker is asserting that KOTOR was made using parts of d20 Modern, but hasn't shown any definitive evidence that it was published using OGL content. He also said that the World of Warcraft TTRPG would be subject to OGL 1.1 which seems dubious since it's completely out of print and nobody is asserting that OGL 1.1 applies to terminated products.
But there are other, more recent examples. One Ring d20, Legend of the Five Rings d20, Doctor Who d20, etc. that would be making equally as dubious claims to sub-license product identity against very litigious entities with deep pockets.
What an absolute terrible move by WotC/Hasbro. With the myriad of opinions by different lawyers (or people who purport to know IP law), it seems they might get away with it, too. Or not. The question is, will Paizo fight them or make a deal?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Battlezoo has gained access to the whole license, and they have published it here: ogl.battlezoo.com.
I think it is interesting to note that the document only talks about the SRD v5.1, not v3.0 or v3.5 or d20 Modern.
What an absolute terrible move by WotC/Hasbro. With the myriad of opinions by different lawyers (or people who purport to know IP law), it seems they might get away with it, too. Or not. The question is, will Paizo fight them or make a deal?
It's practically old home week! Lol
How bitterly disappointing. (I was so looking forward to Planescape...and now I am not - to say the least!)
If WOC harms Pathfinder in anyway, I...don't have words.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What an absolute terrible move by WotC/Hasbro. With the myriad of opinions by different lawyers (or people who purport to know IP law), it seems they might get away with it, too. Or not. The question is, will Paizo fight them or make a deal?It's practically old home week! Lol
It's not that I ever went away, I'm just quietly GM'ing three campaigns in 1E. Not much new to talk about there. ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that I ever went away, I'm just quietly GM'ing three campaigns in 1E. Not much new to talk about there. ^^
Just you wait until the Wizard Lawyers come knocking at your door to take away your unauthorized 1E OGL 1.0a books!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read this whole thread, but I've been following developments over on reddit. One thing that was mentioned was calling their customer service and telling them, politely and calmly, your complaint about their actions regarding the OGL. It can't hurt.
To my best knowledge, Wizards ditched telephone customer service ages ago and now only do it via the website.
|
|
Battlezoo has gained access to the whole license, and they have published it here: ogl.battlezoo.com.
I think it is interesting to note that the document only talks about the SRD v5.1, not v3.0 or v3.5 or d20 Modern.
This is very interesting. While I still think they are unable to "deauthorise" a previous version, if they're claiming to only apply it to 5e material, there will be less companies (specifically Paizo) inclined to take them to court over it.
But that language used the phrasing "You may use any authorized version of this license" and they're now claiming that they can and will "unauthorize" old versions. There is no actual clause allowing the license to be revoked or unauthorized, but it's likely to be up to lawyers to determine if that's legit or not and who has the money to fight Hasbro's legal team?
There is a clause determining how it may be revoked, and it specifies that it can be revoked for IP infringements after 30 days notice. That in itself is good argument for it being the only way to revoke it, as identifying one reason could be construed as identifying the only reason.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that I ever went away, I'm just quietly GM'ing three campaigns in 1E. Not much new to talk about there. ^^Just you wait until the Wizard Lawyers come knocking at your door to take away your unauthorized 1E OGL 1.0a books!
<brandishes 1E Core Rule Book> I'll give you my books when you pry them from my cold, dead hands! :p
Man it's warm in here. Feeling Fahrenheit 451.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<brandishes 1E Core Rule Book> I'll give you my books when you pry them from my cold, dead hands! :p
"Have it your way, then!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also a Change.org petition taking off with about 4x as many signees as opendnd's petition right now – you can find that here.
Wish there was a way the two could link to each other.
Given that this petition is being run by Grim Jim, one of the biggest misogynists in ttRPG space, could be maybe not? He's bad news and is undoubtably going to use this to try and rehabilitate his rightfully tarnished image. His beliefs are counter to everything Paizo stands for and I decidedly don't feel comfortable attaching my name to anything associated with him. Stopped clock and twice a day and all that.
|
<brandishes 1E Core Rule Book> I'll give you my books when you pry them from my cold, dead hands! :pIt's not that I ever went away, I'm just quietly GM'ing three campaigns in 1E. Not much new to talk about there. ^^Just you wait until the Wizard Lawyers come knocking at your door to take away your unauthorized 1E OGL 1.0a books!
LOL, Really. Come take away my 1st ed books and stop me from running my game in MY world that s 100% mine
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh boy, is it that time of day when we police the movement for ideological purity in unrelated issues already?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Battlezoo has gained access to the whole license, and they have published it here: ogl.battlezoo.com.
I think it is interesting to note that the document only talks about the SRD v5.1, not v3.0 or v3.5 or d20 Modern.
It sort of does, just not in a way anyone likes (bolding mine)
ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.
I'm not a lawyer, but whether it is an omission or deliberate, the limitation to only the 5.1 SRD being licensed content implicitly excludes all commercial 3rd party material using the 3.5 SRD, even if the publisher agreed to OGL 1.1.
|
LOL, Really. Come take away my 1st ed books and stop me from running my game in MY world that s 100% mine<brandishes 1E Core Rule Book> I'll give you my books when you pry them from my cold, dead hands! :pIt's not that I ever went away, I'm just quietly GM'ing three campaigns in 1E. Not much new to talk about there. ^^Just you wait until the Wizard Lawyers come knocking at your door to take away your unauthorized 1E OGL 1.0a books!
Let's not get too caught up here. You can do whatever you want in your home game.
WotC are specifically trying to squash commercial competition with this new agreement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's not get too caught up here. You can do whatever you want in your home game.
WotC are specifically trying to squash commercial competition with this new agreement.
If you think mandatory reporting of 50k a year qualifies as "commercial competition" then you must think that 10 year old kids running a lemonade stand needs a food vendor permit.
|
|
If you think mandatory reporting of 50k a year qualifies as "commercial competition" then you must think that 10 year old kids running a lemonade stand needs a food vendor permit.
Let's not get too caught up here. You can do whatever you want in your home game.
WotC are specifically trying to squash commercial competition with this new agreement.
The amount of people earning 50k a year on their RPG work is pretty slim. But I don't think there should be any fiduciary responsibility to WotC whatsoever for d20 based games.
WotC are absolutely being the worst here, and I don't support 1.1 in any way. But nobody is taking your 1e books or going to stop you at your table.
What they are doing is threatening the tools we use at the table every day:
D20pfsrd, aonprd.com, roll20 and Foundry compendia, Nexus, and dozens of other online resources that actually make it possible to run, teach, play and discuss Pathfinder.
Since the license explicitly states you can only use the OGL 1.1 for static media. That means no websites. And since the 3.0 SRD is no longer allowed to be referenced and the 1.0 OGL is no longer an authorised licence these websites are explicitly in danger.
What about-face? {I've been out of the loop with Paizo for a while, PF1 is my game}I wonder if Paizo's recent about-face on errata has anything to do with this?
-Skeld
I doubt that it does. Paizo tends to think out, if not over think, any changes they implement to process.
My gut says this change was in the works for quite some time before the announcement.
The about-face is that they are no longer going to wait for a published book to be reprinted before issuing the standard errata that would normally wait to be announced until a book is reprinted. They are going to post errata on a regular schedule now, think it was twice a year, regardless of books getting reprinted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a lawyer, but whether it is an omission or deliberate, the limitation to only the 5.1 SRD being licensed content implicitly excludes all commercial 3rd party material using the 3.5 SRD, even if the publisher agreed to OGL 1.1.
Uh, that might actually be true.
But what does PF2 use that is in the SRD? Basically, all that is left is names. Names of creatures, spells, and items – the implementations are all different from the SRD, I think.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's almost as if PF2 was written with the eventuality of WotC pulling off s%&! like this at some point. Almost ... still would have to excise Tieflings and replace them with Fiendspawn ;-)
LOL, Really. Come take away my 1st ed books and stop me from running my game in MY world that s 100% mine<brandishes 1E Core Rule Book> I'll give you my books when you pry them from my cold, dead hands! :pIt's not that I ever went away, I'm just quietly GM'ing three campaigns in 1E. Not much new to talk about there. ^^Just you wait until the Wizard Lawyers come knocking at your door to take away your unauthorized 1E OGL 1.0a books!
They won't have to once you run the game online. Then they have every right to reprint your setting and adventure as their own... according to them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The amount of people earning 50k a year on their RPG work is pretty slim. But I don't think there should be any fiduciary responsibility to WotC whatsoever for d20 based games.
It's not about how much you earn, it's about total revenue.
If I do a print run, or a semi-serious podcast, I'm already looking at probably close to a 50k budget. You have to recoup that somehow, even if you're not doing this to make a living.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we know now why they call it “One D&D”
One D&D to rule them all, One D&D to find them,
One D&D to bring them all, and in the license bind them.
No, seriously, I think the whole reason for making this new edition, which Wizards claim is not actually a new edition, is this OGL ploy.
It's almost as if PF2 was written with the eventuality of WotC pulling off s&%~ like this at some point. Almost ... still would have to excise Tieflings and replace them with Fiendspawn ;-)
That could work as a backup plan.
But if WotC/Hasbro goes ahead with the worst possible plan for the OGL for their next edition, we cannot rule out the possibility that the cheapest and most ethical reaction for Paizo might be a class action lawsuit against them.
Remember that Paizo rejected the less onerous (compared to the OGL 1.1 leak) D&D 4E GSL.
Of course, one really nasty option I wouldn't rule out would be for WotC to simply let this OGL 1.1 leak simmer and not formally release it for several months. They could then get rid of some smaller competitors who react as though it had been officially released. By the time they are ready to release this document formally, they will have established a reputation as a company not to be messed with. Of course, companies with access to competent legal counsel hopefully would not fall for any of this.