95% of you didn't need the OGL and you don't need ORC

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
or it is simply an oversight / remnant from PF1. I wouldn't go as far as calling it evidence / admission
Yeah, the claim I would make in Paizo's shoes here is that I'm using a few bits and pieces from PF1 that are 100% my own work, but as under the OGL I'm still required to copy the complete S15 from PF1 in order to reference it on there. Which can also be argued they didn't need to do because it's their own work in the first place and doesn't need the OGL for their own reuse of it (as long as it is, 100%, purely their work from PF1 they're reusing)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
Yeah, the claim I would make in Paizo's shoes here is that I'm using a few bits and pieces from PF1 that are 100% my own work, but as under the OGL I'm still required to copy the complete S15 from PF1 in order to reference it on there. Which can also be argued they didn't need to do because it's their own work in the first place and doesn't need the OGL for their own reuse of it (as long as it is, 100%, purely their work from PF1 they're reusing)
The problem there is that, if Paizo was just porting over material from PF1 into Pathfinder 2E, they'd have reproduced the copyright listings from the OGL listing for whatever PF1 products they so used in the relevant PF2 books. But they didn't; here's the PF1 Core Rulebook Section 15:

PF1-Section-15.jpg

And here's the listing of the PF2 Core Rulebook Section 15:

PF2-Section-15.jpg

As you can see, there's no PF1 material listed in the latter.

Now, to be fair, I've seen some people put forward that you can omit Section 15 copyright references to your own works in a subsequent OGL book that you publish, under the idea that in that case you're both the person committing the infraction as well as the "wronged" party; what are you going to do, sue yourself? But in this case, the PF1 Core Rulebook Section 15 references works by other people, such as the Book of Experimental Might and the Tome of Horrors, so that wouldn't fly if they said they were using PF1 material to make PF2.
 

pemerton

Legend
Ah, I thought (just an assumption with no real basis other than they've moved on) they were out of the PF1 market altogether now, and figured those months worth of products would likely come out before WotC come up with a new OGL (right now I'm thinking there's a good chance they'll wait at least six months for all the chaos they caused to die down before they even mention the OGL again in public)
I don't know for sure, but on one of these threads I read that they still sell PF1 products.
 

pemerton

Legend
that doesn't work. If 1.0a is irrevocable, then by definition PF2 does not infringe on WotC's copyright (and there is no need for Paizo to strip the OGL).
But if Paizo repudiates the licence in respect of PF2, then they would not have the contractual defence against copyright infringement provided by the licence.

This actually also raises another complexity with Paizo's plan for ORC - namely, they are also doing a bit of a WotC with respect to the OGL v 1.0a, namely, claiming a unilateral power to move their works out of that licensing framework even though they have made contractual promises to all their licensees to keep it in there. I haven't seen anything from Paizo or anyone else that addresses the details of that.
 

Ondath

Hero
This actually also raises another complexity with Paizo's plan for ORC - namely, they are also doing a bit of a WotC with respect to the OGL v 1.0a, namely, claiming a unilateral power to move their works out of that licensing framework even though they have made contractual promises to all their licensees to keep it in there. I haven't seen anything from Paizo or anyone else that addresses the details of that.
I'm not sure if this is what is happening. They simply said future Pathfinder and Starfinder books won't have the OGL notice inside them, but they're not taking Pathfinder 1E, 2E or Starfinder SRDs away from the OGL v1.0a. So anyone using the OGL v1.0a could still use the Pathfinder SRDs, but new Pathfinder splatbooks wouldn't be adding anything new to these.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
I'm not sure if this is what is happening. They simply said future Pathfinder and Starfinder books won't have the OGL notice inside them, but they're not taking Pathfinder 1E, 2E or Starfinder SRDs away from the OGL v1.0a. So anyone using the OGL v1.0a could still use the Pathfinder SRDs, but new Pathfinder splatbooks wouldn't be adding anything new to these.
Also, Paizo can remove the OGL 1.0a from the books.

The PRDs are already given to the OGL 1.0a, and can be given to the ORC too.

So, when a creator modifies the PRD, the ORC license can be used for it instead of the OGL 1.0a (I think), or some might want to keep on using the OGL 1.0a.
 

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
The problem there is that, if Paizo was just porting over material from PF1 into Pathfinder 2E, they'd have reproduced the copyright listings from the OGL listing for whatever PF1 products they so used in the relevant PF2 books. But they didn't; here's the PF1 Core Rulebook Section 15:

PF1-Section-15.jpg

And here's the listing of the PF2 Core Rulebook Section 15:

PF2-Section-15.jpg

As you can see, there's no PF1 material listed in the latter.

Now, to be fair, I've seen some people put forward that you can omit Section 15 copyright references to your own works in a subsequent OGL book that you publish, under the idea that in that case you're both the person committing the infraction as well as the "wronged" party; what are you going to do, sue yourself? But in this case, the PF1 Core Rulebook Section 15 references works by other people, such as the Book of Experimental Might and the Tome of Horrors, so that wouldn't fly if they said they were using PF1 material to make PF2.
Hmm, that's interesting. The fact it doesn't have all those other PF1 references would imply PF2 is (or is at least being explained as) a "clean room" implementation (or at least, a clean room with just the SRD, although they're claiming that wasn't actually used either.)
 

Reynard

Legend
Hmm, that's interesting. The fact it doesn't have all those other PF1 references would imply PF2 is (or is at least being explained as) a "clean room" implementation (or at least, a clean room with just the SRD, although they're claiming that wasn't actually used either.)
It's about copyrighted (and copyrightable) text. If Paizo wrote every word of PF2 fresh, it doesn't matter if it was inspired by PF1 (which demonstrably and intentionally replicated large swaths of the SRD). It only matters if a judge deems their work derivative and thus infringement. That's the test we don't have yet, and the one that is likely coming.
 

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
It's about copyrighted (and copyrightable) text. If Paizo wrote every word of PF2 fresh, it doesn't matter if it was inspired by PF1 (which demonstrably and intentionally replicated large swaths of the SRD). It only matters if a judge deems their work derivative and thus infringement. That's the test we don't have yet, and the one that is likely coming.
Yeah, and if someone could somehow prove that PF2 is derivative of PF1, they're suddenly guilty of a bunch of OGL violations by not replicating PF1's S15. Not sure if that really matters to anyone, though, because then the 30 day remedy clause cuts in and all they have to do is fix that in current PDFs and future printings, or have the OGL revoked (and if, as they claim, there's nothing in PF2 they don't own 100%, that doesn't matter either.)

Does seem like a lot of "ifs" in order for them to be hit by anything. The more "ifs", the safer they potentially are.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I get that you're trying to be a smarty pants, but there are literally dozens of lawyers that have been discussing this issue for 80+ pages in several threads, and none of them are talking with the certainty that you have.
They make money off of claims to uncertainty... and WOTC posts here. (Why no that isnt a conspiracy theory why ever would you ask?)
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top