OGL but not D20 clarification?

[Len]

Well, that's the crux of it

Part of the [bunch of stuff] is ( "names and descriptions" of spells ), and Supernatural abilities, Which seems like it DOES cover stuff from the SRD

That's not what I read in my copy of the SRD. Without quoting the whole long "bunch of stuff", the only mention of "names" in it is:

, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items),

Cergorach already explained what "proper names" are - it means, for example, the "Mordenkainen" in "Mordenkainen's Disjunction". Except in the SRD they've already removed "Mordenkainen's" - it's called "Mage’s Disjunction" instead.

I just verified that the wording is the same in the SRD currently posted on wizards.com:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35
http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/Legal.rtf

 

[Cergorach]

Q: What is meant by the term "Open Gaming"?

A: An Open Game is a game that can be freely copied, modified, and distributed, and a system for ensuring that material, once distributed as an Open Game will remain permanently Open.

In previous SRD releases there was a less strict definition of PI, that means that even if proper names would mean Aboleth, Aboleth was designated OGC in a previous SRD release, so i can use the name from there under the OGL.

 

[RandomUsernamehmimo71]

Ok, I see the problem. The initial text, third paragraph down, is what you're referring to.
That doesn't have it. But what it Does do, is refer to 1(e), later on.
Basically, they're defining what IS PI for this work.
1(e) is defining what is PI in general.

The thing is, 1(e) Says that Spell names and Description, etc can be PI. What it comes down to though, is that in this case, they are not. I under

I understand the whole renaming of spells issue. That's not my point I'm afraid I must be doing a bad job of explaining myself to see this many people misunderstanding me.


What it comes down to is, entirely, the line that says "All of the rest of the SRD is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License." Basically, they CAN say that you can't even use Mage's Disjunction. That would be a valid thing that Could argue if they wanted to.
But they waive the right to do that, with the magic line, that "All the rest of the content is OGC"

But if you read 1(e), you will see where they claim the ability TO define that that as PI, if they had not already designated it OGC.

I think this topic has run it's course? I italicised my post that I think I found an escape clause back at 9:30 this morning <grin>
Thank you very much for the help,

 

[jmucchiello]

Ok, I see the problem.

1(e) is defining what is PI in general.

I think you get it but just in case. No, 1(e) defines what MAY be declared PI, NOT what MUST be declared PI. There is no PI unless it is "clearly identified as PI by the owner" (as per 1(e)).

So while WotC HAD* the right to declare the name and description of the Fireball spell PI, they didn't and thus you can reprint it verbatim.

*And I do mean HAD as in "no longer has". Even if the next release of the SRD put Fireball (and its description) into the list of PI, you could always refer to the SRD that exists now and use that description verbatim.