<< Human readable... If you do it in DB form of some sort, you have
to provide a means of editing/viewing the content in base form.
>>
That is a requirement that cannot be enforced. That's a preposterous reading of the OGL in my opinion. Even if it is WotC's official opinion. Why? Because I can distribute things as a PDF file, and if you don't have Acrobat reader, then if you try to read the document you'll fail to read it. And moreover, you may not be able to edit it at all without the passwords for the file. The ability to edit and view with a document whatever any given person does or does not have on their machine is a requirement that is not in the OGL anywhere.
Similarly, if I distribute something as an Access database, there should be NO requirement that people without MS Access be able to read the file. Just as there should be no requirement that people be able to use the software at all on computer platforms for which the Access database does not exist.
The OGL requires only that OGC be "clearly indicated". I think the only reasonable way to interpret it is to assume that, "for those that have the appropriate mechanical and linguistic facilities to access a particular document, can they ascertain which parts of the data are OGC and which aren't?"
If OGC and PI were kept entirely separate, then I think it would take a court to decide if it was unacceptable to simply label, quite clearly, that all contents in file A are PI and all contents in file B are OGC and leave it to the end user to acquire software to open the files present, etc. I, personally, would be VERY clear if a software developer told me that "Everything on CD A is OGC" and "Everything on CD B is PI". The fact that I might need special software to edit or view my data would likely be the end user's problem, because if any interpretation other than that is used, then it starts opening up a huge can of worms whereby anybody without a specific piece of software who can't open a particular file could shout "non-compliance".
I honestly think _IF_ WotC's position is as restrictive as people have suggested that it is, it is that conservative because:
a) people were distributing their OGC via software without any OGL in the distribution
b) people were distributing verbatim copies of their non-OGC stuff via software, blatantly violating their copyrights
c) it is to their market advantage to control the d20-compatible software market given the presence of Mastertools
d) they are trying to err on the side of safety regarding the license Hasbro signed to another company to allow them to handle their interactive games
Now, I'm not saying that doing what I've said will not get you a C&D. I just think that if you got one it would be based on a somewhat thin premise.
Lee
