Moderator: Moderators
STOP BEING WRONG FRANK.FrankTrollman wrote:That's the mandated text from the original Wizards of the Coast OGL. To use any of Pathfinder's innovations, you have to abide by THIS.hogarth wrote:STOP BEING WRONG FRANKFrankTrollman wrote:Unlike the WotC SRD, the Pathfinder SRD is not licensed for commercial use.
-Username17
The first part of your sentence is either wrong or confused.Lich-Loved wrote: If someone wants to make money by replicating any Paizo Material (or WotC Material) or by publishing that they are Pathfinder or D&D 4E-compatible, then they need an appropriate commercial license from the appropriate company.
Frank is right. Paizo's SRD is published under WotCs Open Gaming License, not their own. It literally says things like "9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License".hogarth wrote:STOP BEING WRONG FRANK.FrankTrollman wrote:That's the mandated text from the original Wizards of the Coast OGL. To use any of Pathfinder's innovations, you have to abide by THIS.hogarth wrote: STOP BEING WRONG FRANK
-Username17
That's if you want to use the compatibility logo. "By submitting an application to use the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility Logo[...]"
Not you too, K...K wrote:Frank is right. Paizo's SRD is published under WotCs Open Gaming License, not their own. It literally says things like "9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License".
Listen, this is not a license. There are a number of legal problems with it that make it nonfunctional as a license, not the least of which is that it's WotC's license that has been changed by Paizo in deliberate violation of the license's own terms. When taken with the Paizo's other published licenses, it effectively has no legal protections for third-party publishers.hogarth wrote:Not you too, K...K wrote:Frank is right. Paizo's SRD is published under WotCs Open Gaming License, not their own. It literally says things like "9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License".
Read it again. You can't change the Open Gaming License (see point 2) except for the copyright section which you have to change (see point 6). But what they can do is specify what they want to list as Product Identity and what they want to specify as Open Game Content. That's not part of the Open Game License itself.
Everyone, please consider reading Wizard's FAQ on the Open Game License before posting again.
Please tell us which part of items 1-14 has changed between this and this.K wrote: Listen, this is not a license. There are a number of legal problems with it that make it nonfunctional as a license, not the least of which is that it's WotC's license that has been changed by Paizo in deliberate violation of the license's own terms.
Nice false dichotomy. Sections 1-14 aren't the problem.hogarth wrote:Please tell us which part of items 1-14 has changed between this and this.K wrote: Listen, this is not a license. There are a number of legal problems with it that make it nonfunctional as a license, not the least of which is that it's WotC's license that has been changed by Paizo in deliberate violation of the license's own terms.
Now, altering the license is forbidden in the license, unless you are WotC. And by adding those definitions, the license has been dramatically altered. Incomprehensibly so, in my opinion.Paizo wrote:Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License 1.0a, Seection 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artworks, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content are not included in this declaration.)
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission.
They can claim those as trademarks. Paizo is trying to claim more than WotCs license, though in a way that may not be legally binding.Crissa wrote:Well, according to those documents, Paizo is not claiming product identity in spells, enchantments, etc. Whereas they're allowed to. So their product identity isn't as large as allowed in Wizards' license.
There is no change to 1-14 as regards product not theirs.
-Crissa
Not true. You only have to specify that any open content you used directly is still open content. You DO NOT need to specify that new material you write is open content, even if it is using or based off of open content. It's like a weak-ass version of the GPL that "sucks a barrel of cocks". You can be a cool guy like the Swords and Wizardry or Dark Dungeons teams, and say that everything you'd made in your game is also open content. You can also be a jerk-face bitch like the guy who wrote OSRIC; you write a game using the SRD and then reserve all the good parts of the game as Product Identity that others can't copy "because you actually did work on that section".Juton wrote:I'm pretty sure the OGL is pretty much a copy of one of the GPL licenses that Linux is distributed under. There is nothing WotC can do to put the genie back in the bottle, the genie being the 3.5 SRD. Related to that, any one can take and expand upon the 3.5 SRD, but they have to keep it open and free (both as in speech and in beer). So anyone could take the Pathfinder SRD, at least the content based on the 3.5 SRD and sell it in book form and it would be completely legal.
Wait what the hell? Aren't you supposed to define what's Product Identity and what's Open Game Content for each and every work you release under the OGL? Where exactly did they screw up? By simply not being clear enough in the definitions?K wrote:By adding the following sections in the beginning, they have altered the license dramatically:
Now, altering the license is forbidden in the license, unless you are WotC. And by adding those definitions, the license has been dramatically altered. Incomprehensibly so, in my opinion.Paizo wrote:Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License 1.0a, Seection 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artworks, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content are not included in this declaration.)
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission.
Yes; section 1(d) explains that "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor" is Open Game Content. The identification of material as Open Game Content (or conversely as not Open Game Content) isn't part of the license itself.Lokathor wrote: Wait what the hell? Aren't you supposed to define what's Product Identity and what's Open Game Content for each and every work you release under the OGL?
Sure, terms of art like that should be defined in any good license.Lokathor wrote: Wait what the hell? Aren't you supposed to define what's Product Identity and what's Open Game Content for each and every work you release under the OGL? Where exactly did they screw up? By simply not being clear enough in the definitions?
You raise some interesting points. If I am following you properly, Paizo's phrase:K wrote:Sure, terms of art like that should be defined in any good license.Lokathor wrote: Wait what the hell? Aren't you supposed to define what's Product Identity and what's Open Game Content for each and every work you release under the OGL? Where exactly did they screw up? By simply not being clear enough in the definitions?
The problem is that they've defined it in a way that negates the entire license. And, they issued a license for the rights of a third-party (WotC) in the process, which is weird and they can't do.
is overly broad because they have not clearly defined what they mean by the terms "art", "trademark" and the like. So, in the future, Paizo may be able to claim some spell text or something else as a trademark and haul you into court over it, where a judge would have to determine if such a thing really were a trademark. Win or lose, that would sting in terms of legal expenses. Ok, I get your point, though there are objections to this reasoning (like Paizo not defending this supposed "trademark" vigorously wherever the issue arose as they became aware of it. If I were the defending attorney, I would go right for a summary dismissal on the laches doctrine but I will table this objection for now. ).Paizo wrote:Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License 1.0a, Seection 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artworks, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content are not included in this declaration.)
I think we are talking past each other. The CUP is specifically for the following:hogarth wrote:The first part of your sentence is either wrong or confused.Lich-Loved wrote: If someone wants to make money by replicating any Paizo Material (or WotC Material) or by publishing that they are Pathfinder or D&D 4E-compatible, then they need an appropriate commercial license from the appropriate company.
So what I meant by "Paizo Material" is what the CUP specifically defines as Paizo Material,that is their trademarked images and other intellectual property. I was absolutely not referring to "Paizo Material" in the broad sense, like their OGL stuff, which as you rightly point out, I can repackage and resell if I want. However, if I use the Materials defined in the CUP in any way, that way must not be commercial. By definition nothing in the CUP can be Open Content and thus it has nothing to do with the OGL.CUP wrote:While copyright and trademark laws protect our property, they also prevent you from using our intellectual properties in most circumstances. That means that you are generally prohibited from using any of our logos, images, or other trademarks or copyrighted content without our consent. This policy grants you the consent to use some of our intellectual property under certain circumstances.
This policy authorizes certain non-commercial use of the Paizo-related material specifically identified in the Permissions section of this policy ("Paizo Material").
...unless they decide to claim that CMB is a "trademark" because they have not defined that term. Paizo's problem is not that they would have to withdraw from the license - their problem is that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell in court because they failed to live up to section 1 of the OGL. They haven't "clearly identified" anything as being Open Content or not. And because of that, if they actually went to court and lost, they could very plausibly have WotC take them to court and shut them down.Windjammer wrote:People disagreeing with hogarth on PF being completely open gaming content - except for: location and deity names that are Golarion-specific - are frankly RIDICULOUS.
I've personally had a HUGE flamewar with the German translators of Pathfinder (Ulisses) because I proposed to COPY-PASTE the OGL portions of their rulebook on the 'net. It was never disputed by them for one moment that I could do this, print it, all legally, and they were SHIT SCARED precisely because, apart from a handful of sentences of no consequence (those containing the word "Golarion") and a SINGLE table on the deities of Golarion that go with the cleric class entry, I could COPY the whole book.
Here's the catch: Paizo would have to WITHDRAW the OGL from its books to prevent such practice. Which would mean they self-destruct, as without the OGL they can't print their own books - not even one, not even the measly, mostly rules-free, Chronicles books.
STOP BEING WRONG FRANK.FrankTrollman wrote: ...unless they decide to claim that CMB is a "trademark" because they have not defined that term. Paizo's problem is not that they would have to withdraw from the license - their problem is that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell in court because they failed to live up to section 1 of the OGL. They haven't "clearly identified" anything as being Open Content or not.
STOP BEING WRONG HOGARTHhogarth wrote:STOP BEING WRONG FRANK.FrankTrollman wrote: ...unless they decide to claim that CMB is a "trademark" because they have not defined that term. Paizo's problem is not that they would have to withdraw from the license - their problem is that they don't have a snowball's chance in hell in court because they failed to live up to section 1 of the OGL. They haven't "clearly identified" anything as being Open Content or not.
"Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the game mechanics of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a Section 1(d)."
