This is part of my RPG series of entries here at SOB. See the inaugural entry in the series for more details.
In the following summary of events, I will ignore the (atrocious) GSL — WotC’s D&D 4E “Game System License”, which replaces the much better D&D 3.5 OGL. This is about use licenses that lay out terms for fan sites to benefit from protection against otherwise potential copyright infringement suits.
WotC announced it was going to produce a D&D 4E.
Paizo announced it was going to produce Pathfinder RPG as a continuation of the rules found in the 3.5 SRD.
PRPG test versions were released under the OGL (other than product identity, et cetera) as free downloads.
D&D 4E was released.
Complaints about the lack of an available Web community use license, thus leaving fan Websites that refer to D&D 4E in an uncomfortable legal limbo where one could reasonably infer that the only way to develop content for fan sites is to take one’s chances with the legal doctrine of fair use, prompted WotC to promise a Website and/or community use license at some unspecified point in the future.
Paizo announced its Community Use Policy, suitable for use with Pathfinder RPG materials, about half a year before the scheduled publication date of the final release form of the Pathfinder RPG.
Do you notice something odd here? I do:
Paizo delivers on promises I haven’t even noticed it made while WotC is still very publicly making promises it hasn’t yet kept. In fact, it looks like the trend is that WotC promises something, then Paizo delivers its own equivalent to what WotC promises, then WotC . . . may or may not deliver on its own promise.
While I’m at it, Paizo has also announced the availability of its Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Compatibility Policy — which, it turns out, is eminently reasonable — about half a year before it will even be applicable. I love this kind of advance “warning”.
Of course, I’m biased. I’m biased because:
I prefer open licensing over restrictive, punitive licensing.
I prefer the system in Pathfinder RPG over that of D&D 4E (and over that of D&D 3.5, for that matter, though the differences are much less distinct in that case).
I, um . . . really prefer open licensing over restrictive, punitive licensing.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
I think it should be obvious that I’m neither a lawyer nor anyone with any official ties to Paizo Publishing, LLC. I’ve noticed that sometimes what I think should be obvious and what others find to be obvious do not always match up, however. Therefore:
I am not a lawyer.
I am not officially associated with Paizo Publishing, LLC.