
Gortle |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

In case you missed the news. Look here to find the announcement of new Open RPG Creative License (ORC)

PossibleCabbage |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

It was interesting to learn that the Pathfinder 2nd edition core rulebook was released under the OGL 1.0a not because they wanted to use any creative content made available to them under the license (they wrote the whole thing from scratch so didn't need to) but so that other parties could use Paizo's creative content pursuant to the OGL.
Like the original OGL let the Pathfinder 1st edition CRB just copy/paste the text for "Power Attack" from the PHB, but obviously the 2e Power Attack feat has nothing to do with either.

FormerFiend |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Copy/pasting this from a thread I made in the main Paizo forums because I couldn't get into the thread for the official announcement due to technical difficulties, here are my thoughts;
My main takeaways are in three points;
1. That Paizo's official position is that WotC/Hasbro does not have the legal authority or ability to revoke the OGL. However, implicitly by the existance of the following two points, Paizo recognizes that WotC/Hasbro disagree with that position, intend to do it anyway, and any legal action to stop them would either be too long & disruptive to creators even if won, uncertain to succeed on the merits, or potentially unwinnable through sheer attrition with the simple fact that WotC/Hasbro has a bigger warchest than anyone to devote to a legal battle.
2. Paizo's assertion is that while Pathfinder 1e *was* reliant on the OGL, Starfinder & Pathfinder 2e are distinct & divorced enough from WotC's IP that they no longer rely on the OGL to be published, and that when WotC/Hasbro decide to revoke the OGL & replace it, Paizo is perfectly within it's rights to continue publishing it's current product lines without concern of violating any license or IP ownership WotC has. I have to imagine that Paizo is supremely confident in this position, and imagine that preparing for this eventuality may well have gone into the specific design process for both Starfinder & PF2e, to the point that they are confident that either WotC/Hasbro won't pursue legal action to dispute this assertion, or otherwise that Paizo will win in the event WotC/Hasbro do pursue legal action.
3. Paizo's further assertion is that it's continued use of the OGL in Starfinder & Pathfinder 2e, despite their Point 2 assertion that said license wasn't necessary for their own publication, was to allow other 3rd party publishers to use said license to iterate off of Starfinder & PF2e using the license for convenience. In following that mentality & to circumvent this & any future attempts by WotC/Hasbro to nullify the OGL, Paizo is collaborating with several other publishers to create an independent open license, not tied to one mechanical system, to continue to allow these other publishers to iterate off of their own IP, and further, to insure trust in said license, it will be held by an independent separate entity without a financial incentive to abuse it, as WotC/Hasbro clearly have with the original OGL.
Is that about the sum of things?
If so, my main & biggest concern is this; what happens to Pathfinder 1e material when Wotc/Hasbro pulls the trigger on doing the thing that Paizo asserts they can't do, but also implicitly admits, they can't be stopped from doing, & revokes the OGL? I recognize that PF1e isn't Paizo's primary product anymore and hasn't been for years now, but I still would like to know; will these books be available? Will the pdfs be available? Will Paizo pull them from their storefront & recall them from brick & mortar shops? Paizo can assert that PF2e & SF are safe to carry on, business as usual, but they stipulate in their own statement that PF1e did rely on the OGL to exist.
I've got other questions, as well, but they relate more to what, exactly, the ORC is going to cover, what with it being "system agnostic", but I imagine the answer to that won't come until the license itself is hammered out and actually released to the public.

Gortle |

Is your concern that maybe they might stop selling any PF1 or close all the online material regarding PF1 As part of the legal fallout? I guess it is possible. I really don't think Paizo will lose regarding that part of the OGL. It is almost as clear as it can be.
I'd be more concerned that somewhere in PF2 is something that Hasbro can latch on to somehow. I know they will have checked but it is a lot of material to be confident about. It might force a settlement, an errata, PF3, or worse. I'm sure Paizo have checked but the lines there aren't always clear cut.

Dancing Wind |
In the blog post, Paizo said they'd go to court to fight for the 1.0a version
Paizo does not believe that the OGL 1.0a can be “deauthorized,” ever. While we are prepared to argue that point in a court of law if need be, we don’t want to have to do that, and we know that many of our fellow publishers are not in a position to do so.
emphasis added

PossibleCabbage |

I think the thing about "we'd go to court" was that ultimately if you're willing to go to court to argue that 1.0a can't be revoked, you're probably also willing to go to court to defend that you have not in fact infringed on WotC's copyrights since that might honestly be an easier thing to defend. Like the OGL has always been less permissive than what you could release under existing copyright laws, it just provided the security of "you're not going to go to court" which is now gone.
It's probably not worth Hasbro's lawyers' time to go after books published 10 years ago under the OGL that were in compliance at the time.

graystone |

If so, my main & biggest concern is this; what happens to Pathfinder 1e material when Wotc/Hasbro pulls the trigger on doing the thing that Paizo asserts they can't do, but also implicitly admits, they can't be stopped from doing, & revokes the OGL? I recognize that PF1e isn't Paizo's primary product anymore and hasn't been for years now, but I still would like to know; will these books be available? Will the pdfs be available? Will Paizo pull them from their storefront & recall them from brick & mortar shops? Paizo can assert that PF2e & SF are safe to carry on, business as usual, but they stipulate in their own statement that PF1e did rely on the OGL to exist.
Going by the 1.1 leak, Wotc/Hasbro could sell PF1e themselves... It requires everyone using it to give them a copy of everything made using it and gives them the right to use it as they wish.

Dancing Wind |
I'd be more concerned that somewhere in PF2 is something that Hasbro can latch on to somehow.
In the US, you can sue anybody for anything. Hasbro doesn't need something to "latch onto" if they want to take that path.
But, my sense is like PossibleCabbage, the dollar cost of engaging in this behavior is more than the expected dollar return. A quick cost/benefit analysis will probably disuade them.
Or not. But it won't be based on something somewhere in PF2. It will be based on their assessment of what it's worth to them to obliterate the OGL 1.0a license from the face of the earth.

Kaspyr2077 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going by the 1.1 leak, Wotc/Hasbro could sell PF1e themselves... It requires everyone using it to give them a copy of everything made using it and gives them the right to use it as they wish.
Irrelevant, since Paizo has not signed the 1.1 OGL. Everything Paizo published under the OGL was published under the good OGL. 1.1 - or now, OGL 2.0, as I hear they've renamed it - is not what Paizo ever agreed to, and Hasbro cannot unilaterally "update" the OGL and claim Paizo did agree. Hasbro could march ten thousand lawyers in solid gold suits to the courtroom to argue the point, but if their argument is "We replaced a good contract with a bad contract, so the person who signed the good contract is bound by the bad contract," there does not exist a bribe large enough to convince a sane judge to even hear the case.
What you're saying is entirely true, if someone is dumb enough to try to work with Hasbro to create third party content under the new OGL, but as it currently stands, as long as creators don't sign (and presumably don't start new projects after it goes into effect), the changes to the OGL don't apply. Mind you, Hasbro and WotC would be absolute fools to bring this thing out in any form even slightly resembling the leak, and they know that, considering how quiet they've been lately, so it remains to be seen if they are bold and dumb enough to make it official at all.

breithauptclan |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

My main takeaways are in three points;
...
Pretty much accurate, yes.
If so, my main & biggest concern is this; what happens to Pathfinder 1e material when Wotc/Hasbro pulls the trigger on doing the thing that Paizo asserts they can't do, but also implicitly admits, they can't be stopped from doing, & revokes the OGL? I recognize that PF1e isn't Paizo's primary product anymore and hasn't been for years now, but I still would like to know; will these books be available? Will the pdfs be available? Will Paizo pull them from their storefront & recall them from brick & mortar shops? Paizo can assert that PF2e & SF are safe to carry on, business as usual, but they stipulate in their own statement that PF1e did rely on the OGL to exist.
That is where the legal battles are going to come from.
The existing PF1 content is pretty safe. As was mentioned previously, it is a blatant undermining of the very ideas of contract law to argue that one side of an existing agreement can change the terms of the agreement and hold the other side bound to the new agreement.
The question is about new PF1 dependent content that is published in the future after OGL 2 is released. Can KoboldPress release a new campaign for PF1 and release it under OGL 1.0a after WotC says that 1.0a is no longer an authorized version? Can KoboldPress release their new campaign under ORC considering that PF1 does depend on Open Gaming Content published under the terms of the OGL?
I've got other questions, as well, but they relate more to what, exactly, the ORC is going to cover, what with it being "system agnostic", but I imagine the answer to that won't come until the license itself is hammered out and actually released to the public.
Basically 'system agnostic' means that the license is not tied to any particular company or game system. If PF2 is released with ORC, I can release a homebrew Medium class for it also published under ORC. But I can also release a brand new game system that I thought up all by myself and also publish it under ORC - and if I do so, my ORC license for my game is not tied to PF2's ORC license.
So for a more concrete example, PF2 is currently published with the OGL 1.0a license - for no reason other that to let other people use the license to include PF2 content in their expansions. But now there is a question about what happens to PF2 when D&D changes their license since the OGL is tied to WotC and D&D.

Claxon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

graystone wrote:Going by the 1.1 leak, Wotc/Hasbro could sell PF1e themselves... It requires everyone using it to give them a copy of everything made using it and gives them the right to use it as they wish.Irrelevant, since Paizo has not signed the 1.1 OGL. Everything Paizo published under the OGL was published under the good OGL. 1.1 - or now, OGL 2.0, as I hear they've renamed it - is not what Paizo ever agreed to, and Hasbro cannot unilaterally "update" the OGL and claim Paizo did agree. Hasbro could march ten thousand lawyers in solid gold suits to the courtroom to argue the point, but if their argument is "We replaced a good contract with a bad contract, so the person who signed the good contract is bound by the bad contract," there does not exist a bribe large enough to convince a sane judge to even hear the case.
What you're saying here is a point of contention. I agree with you in principal, but with what WotC is trying to do, they also seem inclined to attempt to litigate this, at least in certain cases.
The issue being that OGL 1.0a doesn't say it irrevocable and so it's at least arguable about whether WotC can rescind it. If it's rescinded, while they cannot (probably) do anything about past sells WotC could make it impossible for a publisher to sell things that were published under 1.0a.
It's true that having agreed to OGL 1.0a will not bind them to OGL 2.0, but having your body of work barred from being sold is a problem for most publishers.

Kaspyr2077 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kaspyr2077 wrote:graystone wrote:Going by the 1.1 leak, Wotc/Hasbro could sell PF1e themselves... It requires everyone using it to give them a copy of everything made using it and gives them the right to use it as they wish.Irrelevant, since Paizo has not signed the 1.1 OGL. Everything Paizo published under the OGL was published under the good OGL. 1.1 - or now, OGL 2.0, as I hear they've renamed it - is not what Paizo ever agreed to, and Hasbro cannot unilaterally "update" the OGL and claim Paizo did agree. Hasbro could march ten thousand lawyers in solid gold suits to the courtroom to argue the point, but if their argument is "We replaced a good contract with a bad contract, so the person who signed the good contract is bound by the bad contract," there does not exist a bribe large enough to convince a sane judge to even hear the case.What you're saying here is a point of contention. I agree with you in principal, but with what WotC is trying to do, they also seem inclined to attempt to litigate this, at least in certain cases.
The issue being that OGL 1.0a doesn't say it irrevocable and so it's at least arguable about whether WotC can rescind it. If it's rescinded, while they cannot (probably) do anything about past sells WotC could make it impossible for a publisher to sell things that were published under 1.0a.
It's true that having agreed to OGL 1.0a will not bind them to OGL 2.0, but having your body of work barred from being sold is a problem for most publishers.
If it is not signed, the leaked version of the OGL will not apply, which means that the original version of the OGL - the one agreed to by publishers - will be the only agreement to apply. As it grants rights "in perpetuity," it would be absolutely ridiculous to argue that an update to the agreement could revoke those rights.
The only ways to lose rights granted in perpetuity is to 1) formally surrender them in a new agreement, or 2) not contest their encroachment, until you not having them is considered the new norm. Neither applies here.

Claxon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

Claxon wrote:Kaspyr2077 wrote:graystone wrote:Going by the 1.1 leak, Wotc/Hasbro could sell PF1e themselves... It requires everyone using it to give them a copy of everything made using it and gives them the right to use it as they wish.Irrelevant, since Paizo has not signed the 1.1 OGL. Everything Paizo published under the OGL was published under the good OGL. 1.1 - or now, OGL 2.0, as I hear they've renamed it - is not what Paizo ever agreed to, and Hasbro cannot unilaterally "update" the OGL and claim Paizo did agree. Hasbro could march ten thousand lawyers in solid gold suits to the courtroom to argue the point, but if their argument is "We replaced a good contract with a bad contract, so the person who signed the good contract is bound by the bad contract," there does not exist a bribe large enough to convince a sane judge to even hear the case.What you're saying here is a point of contention. I agree with you in principal, but with what WotC is trying to do, they also seem inclined to attempt to litigate this, at least in certain cases.
The issue being that OGL 1.0a doesn't say it irrevocable and so it's at least arguable about whether WotC can rescind it. If it's rescinded, while they cannot (probably) do anything about past sells WotC could make it impossible for a publisher to sell things that were published under 1.0a.
It's true that having agreed to OGL 1.0a will not bind them to OGL 2.0, but having your body of work barred from being sold is a problem for most publishers.
If it is not signed, the leaked version of the OGL will not apply, which means that the original version of the OGL - the one agreed to by publishers - will be the only agreement to apply. As it grants rights "in perpetuity," it would be absolutely ridiculous to argue that an update to the agreement could revoke those rights.
The only ways to lose rights granted in perpetuity is to 1) formally surrender them in a new agreement, or 2) not contest their encroachment,...
Let me start by saying, I am not a lawyer. However I have read several things about this whole debacle and more than one lawyer has stated that "perpetual" does not mean irrevocable and so there is at least ground to litigate this in court. It is not as simple and easy (based on what I've read) as many people seem to think/hope it is.
Again, not a legal expert, and I agree with you about the principle but the actuality of things may not line up with that.

Dancing Wind |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the unusual aspects of this disagreement is that WotC keeps repeating what the "intention" of the OGL was.
And they keep forgetting that the people who created the original OGL, and know precisely what their intention was, are the ones launching the new ORC and are the ones willing to go to court to say that WotC has got their intentions all wrong.

Loreguard |

They are trying to be hinging on the word 'Authorized'.
However, I am pretty sure that word Authorized is there to say... hey, I just wrote a OGL 1.0b and it says that people can use their IP and everyone has to pay Me (not them) 10% royalties. And in the license it says everyone can immediately begin using the new license.
I can't say that, since that is an updated OGL license with higher number, people can use it and they now owe me money. They can't do that... or they could try, but it wouldn't hold muster, as it doesn't grant them rights to use the WotC Content, it would fail. WotC never Authorized that license, it isn't valid. However, 1.0 and 1.0a were both Authorized licenses. And even if WotC wishes to say they are going to label it as no longer a currently Authorized license. They would have to admit the answer, of the question 'was this an Authorized license' is Yes. By consideration of the use of the license, as long as it was an authorized license, the mentioned content is usable within the confines of the license. So if it was an Authorized License, it makes the license valid as long as the entity utilizing the license has not superseded it with a different one that withdrew their prior gained rights. (or potentially failed to comply with the original requirements)
It might simply be a scare tactic one their part to try to scare what they perceive as competition out of the market, if they can. The question will be will they scare away partners by showing that they are willing to overtly preform what really isn't hard to describe as bad faith actions. Nothing like telling a potential partner that you are more than willing to try to utilize a loophole you think you found in a contract that they themselves wrote, to literally steal access to their partner's property and hold it for ransom.
Glad to see Paizo standing up and forming the ORC with some partners, I think it is an Appropriate response to what appears to be the direction they are going.
I'm sorry that management at WotC thought this was an appropriate direction for them to go. I honestly am going to have to consider changing how I view their new products.

graystone |

I'm sorry that management at WotC thought this was an appropriate direction for them to go.
I'm inclined to this it was Hasbro, not WotC that had this 'brilliant' plan. Ever since 4E, I've gotten the impression that hey where counting every copper piece and now someone most likely calculated they could make a few extra pennies if they went this new route.

David knott 242 |

Loreguard wrote:I'm sorry that management at WotC thought this was an appropriate direction for them to go.I'm inclined to this it was Hasbro, not WotC that had this 'brilliant' plan. Ever since 4E, I've gotten the impression that hey where counting every copper piece and now someone most likely calculated they could make a few extra pennies if they went this new route.
Too bad nobody told them just how expensive this route could prove to be for them.

Kaspyr2077 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me start by saying, I am not a lawyer. However I have read several things about this whole debacle and more than one lawyer has stated that "perpetual" does not mean irrevocable and so there is at least ground to litigate this in court. It is not as simple and easy (based on what I've read) as many people seem to think/hope it is.
Again, not a legal expert, and I agree with you about the principle but the actuality of things may not line up with that.
I'm not sure where, exactly, this case would be adjudicated, but the principles behind it are pretty uniform everywhere, as far as I know, so I'll help you out.
Say you're homesteading. You have the land, and you want to start building. Your nearest neighbor, Watts, agrees to lend you the hammer. He signs an agreement with you, for some reason, about this hammer - he remains the owner, but he grants you its use, and rights to the things you produce with the hammer, in perpetuity. You spend the next twenty years building things. Houses, sheds, barns, etc, you have the place pretty well outfitted and looking good.
At this point, twenty or so years into it, Watts shows up, announcing that he's changing the deal, and he has ownership rights of anything produced by the hammer, past, present, and future. You think he's stupid, tell him you're not using the hammer any more anyway. You go to court over who is entitled to what.
You don't want to abide by the terms of the new deal, so, the judge will take the hammer away from you and give it to Watts. You don't get to use it any more. He has canceled your original agreement, as you say, despite the "in perpetuity" clause in there. However, you built several buildings with that hammer on the understanding that those were your buildings, Watts would never have a claim to them, and if you knew Watts would come along and alter the deal, maybe you wouldn't have used that hammer in the first place. Since you made decisions and took action on what to create based on the initial agreement, and you would have made different decisions under different circumstances, the rights to those creations will be based on the initial agreement - Watts doesn't have a claim at all, and NEVER WILL, guaranteed by that "in perpetuity" clause.

Kaspyr2077 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are trying to be hinging on the word 'Authorized'.
However, I am pretty sure that word Authorized is there to say... hey, I just wrote a OGL 1.0b and it says that people can use their IP and everyone has to pay Me (not them) 10% royalties. And in the license it says everyone can immediately begin using the new license.
The "Authorized" argument is pretty sketchy, because there's no language in the agreement about de-authorization, and I'm not aware of any legal framework that could be referencing. That whole part of the OGL is set up in such a way that it strongly suggests that the intent is to allow the licensees choose the iteration of the agreement that is most favorable to themselves as the basis for any legal dispute - and the people who wrote the thing are publicly supporting this interpretation. There is no process for what Hasbro is trying to do, which is to just unilaterally disqualify all previous iterations of the agreement from use in that clause, unless that's a legal structure in the specific jurisdiction where they agreed to settle disputes.
If such a structure does exist, it needs to be legislated out, because the entire concept is just anathema to contract law.

Claxon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Claxon wrote:Let me start by saying, I am not a lawyer. However I have read several things about this whole debacle and more than one lawyer has stated that "perpetual" does not mean irrevocable and so there is at least ground to litigate this in court. It is not as simple and easy (based on what I've read) as many people seem to think/hope it is.
Again, not a legal expert, and I agree with you about the principle but the actuality of things may not line up with that.
I'm not sure where, exactly, this case would be adjudicated, but the principles behind it are pretty uniform everywhere, as far as I know, so I'll help you out.
Say you're homesteading. You have the land, and you want to start building. Your nearest neighbor, Watts, agrees to lend you the hammer. He signs an agreement with you, for some reason, about this hammer - he remains the owner, but he grants you its use, and rights to the things you produce with the hammer, in perpetuity. You spend the next twenty years building things. Houses, sheds, barns, etc, you have the place pretty well outfitted and looking good.
At this point, twenty or so years into it, Watts shows up, announcing that he's changing the deal, and he has ownership rights of anything produced by the hammer, past, present, and future. You think he's stupid, tell him you're not using the hammer any more anyway. You go to court over who is entitled to what.
You don't want to abide by the terms of the new deal, so, the judge will take the hammer away from you and give it to Watts. You don't get to use it any more. He has canceled your original agreement, as you say, despite the "in perpetuity" clause in there. However, you built several buildings with that hammer on the understanding that those were your buildings, Watts would never have a claim to them, and if you knew Watts would come along and alter the deal, maybe you wouldn't have used that hammer in the first place. Since you made decisions and took action on what to create based on the...
Yes, I agree with your story here. WoTC can't change the past.
But, if they can revoke the license they could stop publishers from selling anymore content that used that license (unless they remove content covered by the OGL and rerelease it) or be sued by WotC.
I agree they wont be able to go after sells that have already happened, but I think they can go after future sales if the license is revoke and the content not changed to exclude OGL content.
I'm not sure that the arguments would hold up in court, but I think this is WotC/Hasbro's aim. It's not to go after things that have happened, but to stop publisher from anymore sales based on OGL content. Which would outright ruin most small publishers, because they wouldn't have any content they can sell and would have to create new content with a new license in a new style because they can't use the stuff they're used to.