<<I can see what you are saying but it's my understanding that only OGC has to be clearly marked, anything else not in that declaration or showing up on the PI definitions list is PI unless it is specifically released as OGC. >>
If memory serves, PI has to be clearly identified. Regardless, as I noted with the case of "Savage Species", the book isn't covered by the OGL at all. It contains no OGC or PI, per se.
<<
"11. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Game Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have written permission from the Contributor to do so."
So even if you are correct with the below example wouldn't Section 11 still hang you up?
>>
That's true. I'd been so thoroughly focused on the compatibility declaration that I'd forgotten the prohibition against contributor name prohibition. Re: my "Clownworks Enterprises SRD" example (with no declared PI), that opens up a different barrel of monkeys -- whether internal references to contributors' works that weren't declared as PI are per se "marketing or advertising". If not, then you aren't using the contributor's name in marketing and advertising and you aren't using any PI. If "see X rulebook for more information" is a bit of marketing and/or advertising then Section 11 governs.
That still doesn't address Savage Species, though. That book is not covered by the OGL at all, and so my question still stands, at some level unanswered: when does an implied compatibility cross the line re: the OGL? If you mention "Savage Species" but not "WotC" then you aren't using PI. Are you making a compatibility declaration.
Thanks for your comments.
Lee
