Campbell,
I know MM is not OGC in any section of it, but I was refering to one book most have on their shelves and those passages in italic are not in the srd at all. I should have made it clear that the MM does not have open content inside, although there is content inside that can be found in the SRD. WotC books do not require the OGL, MM2 has two OGC monsters and UA is the only true OGL/D20 STL product they have.
And UK,
The names seem to follow the idea of the "crippled content" as previously outlined, you could make a spell called Anulael's Horrid Grasp, for example, and say Anulael is product identity, i tend to like this approach because other books may actually reference yours without needing to rewrite it, besides, this could possibly improve your sales if it happens.
Since your books are meant to be huge and have a unique approach to them, I doubt any company would really mean to re-publish it, or even large portions of it, but as far as the license goes, you can keep most of those stuff PI, I think it is a bad idea, if it was any good, companies around the web woudl be using it for their own products.
And for the content list, I don't know, but it seems just odd that the aberrations introduction is open and the others are all closed, but nothing wrong with it, I jsut think it is odd.
On the pedantic thing, I don't know, it is a product and not a post or opinion, the more user friendly the better to me, sure Atlas games seems a bit overzealous to me, but I tend to find the introductory text a good way tp shed light on the open/closed issue.
