Firstly I would like to apologize for creating another thread on this subject. However, I have been trying for over three hours to get into the blog post/thread for the official announcement and the page. Will. Not. Load. I have been getting costant 502 errors and pictures of the yoshki mechanic doing "scheduled maintenance ad nauseam.
I recognize that this thread will likely be closed regardless, but I want to make it clear that I'm posting this here in a separate thread because I am literally unable to post it in it's appropriate place due to technical difficulties.
So, with that out of the way, let me put down my thoughts & take aways from this announcement while they're relatively fresh, and welcome any clarifications or corrections for where I am mistaken, and let me voice my own concerns & uncertainties for what doesn't seem to be explicitly addressed.
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they deliberately shut down the thread in a weird way to cut the unwanted extra traffic.
I was able to place an order earlier!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually curious as well. Paizo has never stopped offering PDFs of their PF1 material, both rules and APs, so I think unless they intend to shelve those after all these years there'll need to be some way to cover them under the ORC going forward. Ditto to any publisher that's still selling PF1 content, be it older publications or new releases.
They mentioned being willing to argue the point in court if necessary, doesn't really seem like an admission to me! My bet would be that the PF1E materials will stay as they are.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They mentioned being willing to argue the point in court if necessary, doesn't really seem like an admission to me! My bet would be that the PF1E materials will stay as they are.
I think they bet WotC will not go after the 3.x-like products if they feel it will lead to court. And Paizo explicitly stated they would go to court if needed. It's a warning to WotC.
Anyway, 5e-related products is where the potential lies in WotC's eyes. Not 3.x => not worth the hassle.
I'm actually curious as well. Paizo has never stopped offering PDFs of their PF1 material, both rules and APs, so I think unless they intend to shelve those after all these years there'll need to be some way to cover them under the ORC going forward. Ditto to any publisher that's still selling PF1 content, be it older publications or new releases.
It is really shaky ground to argue that existing material published under OGL 1.0a has to be bound by OGL 2 or discontinue selling and distributing it.
New material has a stronger case that it must be published under OGL 2 if it depends on the OGL at all.
In either case, Paizo has said that they will throw hands in court if needed because both cases should be allowed.
It is completely reasonable for WotC to create a new license for their new One D&D content - and name it "Open Gaming License" no matter how misleading that is. But holding existing OGL 1.0a content to the new license is highly risky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope with all the increased revenue they put a solid chunk of that into the website, lol.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They mentioned being willing to argue the point in court if necessary, doesn't really seem like an admission to me! My bet would be that the PF1E materials will stay as they are.I think they bet WotC will not go after the 3.x-like products if they feel it will lead to court. And Paizo explicitly stated they would go to court if needed. It's a warning to WotC.
Anyway, 5e-related products is where the potential lies in WotC's eyes. Not 3.x => not worth the hassle.
According to this morning's press release, anything that is currently licensed under OGL 1.0a will continue to be licensed under OGL 1.0a in perpetuity.
(this squares with a less-reactive reading I read of OGL 1.1 which asserted that 1.1 would have prohibited new licensing of material under 1.0a going forward but would not have been able to retroactively de-authorize past 1.0a material - because that is how the law generally works; you can stop something from happening in the future, you can't retroactively have not made it happen back to the beginning of the original license).