Morrus said:
Sounds like the publisher has not implemented the OGL correctly. I'm assuming here that it's not the same publisher that produced the original product (in which case the PI issue disappears; even so, you have no way of knowing what licensing agreement exists between the two publishers).
Correct. It's not the same publisher who produced the source text. There may be a seperate license in place, though if there is, it's not cited in the work itself and it made me wonder why,
if a seperate license is in place, would the publisher of the derivitive work include an
additional PI statement (encompassing the original publisher's PI) in the attached copy of the OGL.
Certainly re-used OGC must be cited. You ask if the terms of the OGL have changed - presumably the OGL is printed in that book for you to view? The short answer, of course, is that they have not (although there is more than one version of the OGL out there, but that element is identical in each).
Yeah, re-used OGC stuff is absolutely not cited (though granted, there isn't a lot of it). The entire body of content is, in fact, specifically declared as
not being OGC in the OGC statement, though there is a seperate withstanding rider of sorts that allows re-use of all proper names and such therein provided that credit is extended to the author of the derivative work.
The reason I asked is because, despite these potential license violations, I really like the product and had wanted to expand on it a bit. That said, after doing some more research, I've decided to build directly on LL and Northern Crown as their licenses seem to be genuinely open and not subject to the aformentioned potential violations and unusual withstanding riders.
I guess, what caused the confusion, was that I couldn't figure out why somebody would release under the OGL only to negate the license, either by unintentional violation or by design (declaring all content to be
not OGC, and adding the withstanding rider to facilitate re-use). Still can't.
