Well, the GPL doesn't put organizations that choose that license at the mercy of the FSF. The FSF isn't a business competing with the organizations that choose the GPL. The FSF also cannot change the rules of the license a posteriori.
The OGL doesn't look much like the GPL. Wizards of the Coast is a business in direct competition to others using the OGL. It's also crazy that something under the OGL falls in WotC's jurisdiction even if it uses no rules or settings from D&D -- I must have misunderstood this because this is simply too crazy to be true.
> The FSF also cannot change the rules of the license a posteriori.
GNU can and has changed the rules of one of their licenses. Specifically the GFDL 1.3 was released to allow all the wikis licensed under GFDL 1.1+/GFDL1.2+ to migrate to CC-BY-SA.
This is arguably a case of using the power for good, but fear of them using the power for bad is exactly why e.g. Linux is GPLv2-only rather than GPLv2-or-later
If I understand this correctly, your example isn't a case of retroactively modifying a license.
If you publish something under an X+ license, aren't you effectively saying "the conditions of this or a later revision apply"? You are willingly choosing to use this version or a later one. So if a later one changes one of the provisions of the prior version, this isn't a retroactive change but something you explicitly wanted when you used version X+. Version X isn't changed at all, it's just that you explicitly said you accepted version X+1 whenever it became available.
Is this the same situation with the OGL and Paizo? Is Pathfinder licensed under OGL version X+? Seems... unwise. Not like the GPL or whatever, because the GPL is not aimed at restricting your business success and is not designed by your direct business competitor!
> Is this the same situation with the OGL and Paizo? Is Pathfinder licensed under OGL version X+?
Yes.
There are two reasons for this, one is that the first edition of pathfinder had to be, because it used material from D&D 3.5, and then the second edition didn't want to break compatibility with the first edition's ecosystem, and the second is it would violate the copyright of the OGL itself to use a modified version without an "or later version" clause. The same would be true for the GPL, except the GPL expressly provides a mechanism to choose to use the or later clause or not.
Ah, I get it! So Pathfinder 1st Ed was based in a version of D&D (3.5) which already used version OGL+! That's the piece of the puzzle I was missing: the minute Paizo decided to fork D&D, they became locked into this unfortunate licensing choice, at the mercy of future license updates. I also understand you cannot decide to use a "pinned" version if the original you're licensing is already using a "plus" version.
In hindsight, it looks like a terrible decision for Pathfinder to have accepted those terms. Had I been then, I would have made an entirely new game "in the spirit" of 3.5 but starting from scratch. I guess they opted for the more appealing route of trying to more directly appeal to disgruntled fans or D&D, and now they are facing the downsides of that. It sucks, agreed.
I guess this is a lesson about the risks of trying to ride another company's success instead of making your own thing. And yes, it happens with software as well.
(I'm still not convinced this will affect companies/games using the OGL for things entirely unrelated to D&D. That'd be surreal!)
The OGL doesn't look much like the GPL. Wizards of the Coast is a business in direct competition to others using the OGL. It's also crazy that something under the OGL falls in WotC's jurisdiction even if it uses no rules or settings from D&D -- I must have misunderstood this because this is simply too crazy to be true.