<<Sure, you could run the program, but then you'd have to run seemingly endless iterations (create class after class, etc) and take a lot of time. It's much quicker to be able to check the data itself, saving the publisher much time should they feel the need to check sources using their OGL content.
>>
I think it's clear to me that the "clearly identify" requirement is to know what can be redistributed. If the goal of the license was to allow publishers to easily track which parts of a work were based on their OGC and which weren't, then the license would allow (or _require_) subsquent users to footnote their works to show which parts of the derivative work come from which OGL sources.
The license doesn't work that way. In fact, it makes it explicitly difficult to explain which parts are derivative of what work (as such annotations might be misinterpreted as declarations of compatibility). If I built a class as OGC and the PI'd the name or something, then if Code Monkey took the class and PI'd the name I'd have to look through their data files with a magnifying glass to have any prayer of figuring out which lines of the data were mine vs. WotCs.
So, an interpretation that the "clearly indicated" requirement is to protect vendors to allow them to track their products seems a bit far fetched. It's primarily to indicate to the user what he can redistribute.
Clear indications of the OGC _do_ protect vendors from having their OGC subsequently locked down by later vendors. But in products where 100% of the distribution is declared as OGC, then vendors who have OGC which has been re-used are 100% guaranteed that nothing they declared as OGC has been locked down.
Any PI that is getting used is very likely to be obvious if it is artwork, a trademark, etc. So, having uncompiled source to stare at doesn't really enhance PI protections in many instances.
Lee
