Quote:
Originally Posted by Farling
Are you sure about the sharing bit still conforming to the CUP?
I don't know if sharing something with RW counts as publishing.
|
RW is a new medium, as I have often stated. It may well be considered a new publishing format, and I don't think anyone wants to volunteer to be the test case to find that out.
ShadowChemosh may be over-stating the breadth, but the Community Use Policy (CUP) is pretty generous.
WotC and Paizo have different business models.
The D&D business model is to sell the core rulebooks ... they left the 3.x era adventures to third parties because their analysis said it would not be profitable for them to do the adventures (except for a minimal number). Everything they did publish was to drive sales of the PHB in the end. The more restrictive licenses on 4E and 5E are intended to prevent people from re-publishing enough of the rules that would discourage the sales of the core books.
In contrast, Paizo's staple product is the Adventure Paths. The rules are there to provide the framework for running the adventures. Paizo sells the rulebooks and expands the game, but that is primarily to support ongoing sales and the APs. They are more open with the availability of the rules because they feel that increases the sames of their adventures.
The OGL, as a specific license, grants certain usage according to its wording. Being more specific, it supersedes general IP law in some areas, but relies on that law framework for the points not addressed in the OGL itself. Content not declared as "Open" in the OGL falls under the broader IP laws.
Paizo's CUP is also a more specific license. It allows the use of certain things that the OGL would not (by itself) under limited circumstances. It pre-dates RW, and may be subject to revision to address the circumstances of RW, so it may be dangerous to rely on it for RW.