This is a very interesting topic. But since I am no native english speaker, several questions turned up for me while reading this whole affair (and please forgive any spelling/grammar mistakes). Hopefully I state my opinions in a way, so no misunderstandings arise.
1) As I understood, the whole argument revolves around the question if the stat blocks presented by Fyrlock are an infringement of copyright due to the fact, that
a) they were not published under the OGL (or proper 5E license), which would perhaps make
the whole affair obsolete, if the published stat blocks would not violate terms stated by said
licence(s)
b) Fyrlock did put a own copyright sign/tag for his stat blocks on the published stat blocks, which
implies in my personal view, that he made them up from scratch (at least, that is how I
understand copyright) and thereby infringing/violating copyright laws, since the original stat
blocks were the basis for his own and not his own generic work
2) If I got things right, then game mechanics and rules in general cannot be copyrighted in any way, no matter what they are, except for content that is considered Product Identity. So integrating monsters like the Mind Flayer, Beholder, Slaad and Kuo-Toa for example is an infringement of copyright, since they are Product Identity of the publishing company (in this case WotC). So my questions are:
a) Why can something be considered/treated as PI, which falls under the copyright rules and
underlying mechanics on the other side can not be copyrighted. As I personally see it, both are
creative (= unique?) works, that are not less subject for copyright protection than a fiction novel
for example.
b) Wouldn´t the original ruleset already be considered unique (= creative), since perhaps not
their different parts but the whole set/combination of them make for a unique product falling
under the copyright law? Personally spoken, if somebody talks about AC, HD and Saving
Throws, I immediately think of D&D. Therefore that is a kind of PI (at least in my opinion).
3) Is the visual presentation of game mechanics/content copyrightable or not? If the answer is yes (which I think is here the case, since the creativity behind this presentation process is unique), then a similar (albeit modified version) presentation might lead to confusion about the origin of the product in question. And this might lead unwary people to the assumption, that the product in question published by Frylock is 100% genuine and not the work of WotC in any way. In how far those modifications to the original stat block is sufficient to make it unique (= no infringement of copyright laws) would be interesting to see.
4) What is the difference between copyright and product identity? The mentioned monsters are “considered” (quote from the wikipedia entry of the Mind Flayer) PI by WotC. So as I understand it, PI is what makes a product unique/recognizable on the market. On the other hand PI can´t be copyrighted? And how do you legitimate PI (by a kind of patent act/bureaucracy, official procedure etc.). Very confusing for me (Let me make that clear at this point: No I don´t have any intention on going to war with WotC over that or question the validity of this aspect/statement or whatever you want to call it). Could the official stat block be considered PI and therefore a violation of PI be assumed? And as a side note: Game mechanics and rules can´t be copyrighted, but is a stat block a mechanic/rule or something different? Isn´t it rather a collection of creative imaginary values that may be interpreted individually (= house rules) and therefore are unique via the compilation of several more or less independent aspects into a single block?
5) If a license is published/made public it can be revoked, right? Why is the OGL considered unrevokable? As I understand it, the OGL is only viable in connection with the SRD, which results in the OSR/retro clone products being possible to be published (as long as you don´t violate mentioned PI). So if somebody violates a license in such an open and (IMHO) aggressive way (as is perhaps this case here), couldn´t that lead to the mentioned revoking of the OGL as mentioned by others, since WotC might see a possible threat to their products as a whole? Or is this unrevokable aspect based within the text of the OGL itself by not stating a kind of expiration date or procedure for revoking it in case the license publisher wishes to do so?
BTW for me the statement, that the OGL is nonsense/non-valid (no quotation here), is a very drastic statement.
6) If Frylock wouldn´t have placed his own copyright tag under the product in question and added an approbate license (OGL or 5E, whatever would be approbate here), then as I understand it, the whole affair would not have happened. So my stupid question is here: Why pose something as your own and make a big wind about it when notified about it, when there are possibilities to avoid that and still publish your work? To prove that everything in the gaming industry can be copied for free except for graphics and exact wording perhaps?
If I misinterpreted or misunderstood anything, please correct me.
