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:
I don't know for sure, but on one of these threads I read that they still sell PF1 products.
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.
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.
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.)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:
And here's the listing of the PF2 Core Rulebook Section 15:
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.
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.)
They make money off of claims to uncertainty... and WOTC posts here. (Why no that isnt a conspiracy theory why ever would you ask?)
