Posted by a friend of mine a few minutes ago. I'm having a bad brain day and as such I'm not thinking the clearest. What would something like this mean for sites like d20pfsrd.com?
There's a discussion going on in the Paizo General Discussion forum
Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo / other OGL companies
Here's Paizo's current statement
Paizo Inc., publisher of the Pathfinder RPG, one of D&D’s largest competitors, declined to comment on the changes for this article, stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation.
Thanks. I looked for a discussion already in progress before posting but I guess I overlooked it.
The problem is that Paizo probably had to accept the new OGL to make content for 5E, but now that's endangered their hold on stuff made under the old OGL for original Pathfinder.
I also assumed that fear of this is what prompted the creation of Pathfinder 2E, though I'm not sure if 2E still falls under the OGL or if it became original enough to not need it.
The problem is that Paizo probably had to accept the new OGL to make content for 5E, but now that's endangered their hold on stuff made under the old OGL for original Pathfinder.
The 1.1 OGL isn't out yet; this was a leak. It was supposed to be released Wednesday, I think, but was not, so the leak may have delayed it. From the Roll for Combat stream with a contract lawyer, people would still be able to release 5e stuff under the 1.0a OGL, despite any language to the contrary in 1.1. That seems consistent with various versions of open source licenses in the free software world.
I also assumed that fear of this is what prompted the creation of Pathfinder 2E, though I'm not sure if 2E still falls under the OGL or if it became original enough to not need it.
The PF2e Core Rulebook includes a copy of the OGL version 1.0a, so I don't think it was created to get away from it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder about the motivation of such a move (if it's true). Sure, it might put a lot of pressure on competition and even drive some of them out of business. But WotC barely has the ressources to rehash old stuff - do they really think they can keep all these players interested in the hobby? Do they hope to completely dominate a very small market instead of being the biggest fish in a small one?
And as a third-party producer, I'd avoid working with such a company in any way. If they pull such a move once, they might do again.
EDIT: Finally, if only half the affected companies allies to challenge WotC, both on business and legal level, I wouldn't bet on WotC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some lawyers are going to have to decide whether they can actually retroactively revoke the OGL 1.0a (most likely they can't, but Hasbro can afford lawyers.) It feels like this is mostly a copyfraud bluff a la "the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated, without express written consent of Major League Baseball" intended to frighten the small fish into complying.
A court is likely to look askance at WotC trying to cancel a license that they were fully aware of and benefited greatly from for two decades.