<<That, in and of itself, poses a hard choice for me:
--stick to my principles, that PI requires some sort of ownership and
you can't PI common terms (and, for that matter, can't PI
knowingly-OGCed terms)>>
Woodelf, I'd accept that PI probably needs an owner. What I'm less clear on is what the terms and conditions to claim "ownership" are for things not covered by trademark and copyright law. The requirements for "ownership" must be different than those established by those 2 bodies of law, because they don't extend coverage normally to poses or concepts.
<<>Additionally, the website claims that the 3.5 SRD is a "revised" SRD.>>
That's an interesting point. I noticed that, but figured they'd clean it up in their cure period. If it is an item derived from their copyright, then the new version can establish different PI than the previous version. If they derive it directly from the 3.0 SRD (why would they be that foolish?) then they can't, since they too would then be bound by the terms of the OGL and couldn't PI stuff that was opened in the original text.
<<The inclusion of a generic term
>such as this will definitely have major repercussions, even more than
>we currently can think of, I am sure.
>>
Yes. I think it would establish a precedent that people could leverage the "concepts" and "language" clauses and claim ownership on almost anything that wasn't already OGC'd in an item in your section 15.
Lee
