>
<<"2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that
contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used
under and in terms of this License. "
Notice that the license does not apply to a work. It only applies to the OGC.
>
The definition of the OGC is that it "means any work covered by this license, specifically excluding Product Identity".
An approximate algebraic replacement then in the above statement you quote is:
"This License applies to any work covered by this license except the parts of that work declared as Product Identity, provided that said work contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used
under and in terms of this License. "
In my mind, quoting a line saying that the license applies to the OGC is borderline irrelevant, since, if you had no PI, then the definition of OGC is that it defaults to the "any work covered by this license".
Again: OGC means any work covered by the OGL, and usage of the term "work" elsewhere in the license is handled in a fashion so as to suggest that the "work" is an encompassing volume which includes OGC (since the license notes that _portions_ of the work which are OGC must be declared clearly as such). So the work is an encompassing unit, inside which are OGC and PI.
I refer anyone interested in examining the strengths and flaws of these contentions to search the archives, and encourage those interested to take this point up with me via private email to reduce list traffic on this subject except where it applies to the original point of the thread: "what constitutes a declaration of compatibility?" and secondarily "what constitutes marketing?".
Lee
