<<But they cannot now claim it as PI when it was released as open
previously.
>>
When you derive from the original copyrighted source (without the OGL involved) you can create a separate iteration of the work with new and unusual licensing requirements. WotC has the power to create SRD 3.5 directly from their copyrighted source. Therefore, they can issue a brand new iteration of the content under a completely different licensing scheme.
That wouldn't lock down the material under SRD 3.0, but it could lock down new materials in SRD 3.5.
<<From their FAQ:>>
Q: If I identify something as Product Identity that was previously
distributed as Open Game Content, does the material become Product
Identity?
A: No. Once content has been distributed as Open Game Content, it
cannot become Product Identity, even if you are the original creator
of the content.
I question this interpretation. One wonders if WotC staff or WotC legal drafted this. The above FAQ interpretation does not derive directly from the printed language of the license. I believe that each iteration of the text can have it's own licensing -- they can license directly, license part of the document with one PI declaration, license part with a different PI declaration, etc. -- so long as each occurs in a distinct instance.
In any case, I think what it's saying is that you can't go back and close down what you've opened. HOWEVER, if you modify the content, and add to it, then you _CAN_ lock down the modifications.
While not precisely a public domain vs. copyright issue, that's somewhat analagous. If I take something in the public domain and print it, it's still in the public domain. I can't protect a public domain work under copyright law except, perhaps, my formatting, fontography, and selection of public domain materials. However, if I add to it substantively, editing parts, etc., then the resulting work has verbatim _expression_ which is not in the public domain and which is subject to copyright law.
All the parts which are verbatim copied from SRD 3.0 are OGC. All parts which are revisions or additions can be treated as new content with a new declaration.
I find their interpretation above a little sketchy in any case. I think it is an oversimplification of a complicated issue.
Lee
