<<If it is "correct" to use a phrase like "Everything derived from the SRD is
OGC" could one then not also use that type of declaration to deliniate their
PI. For example, "everything derived from [licensed source or PD source x]
is PI"?>>
I think this type of designation is not generally gonna be very clear to the end user. Instead of telling the end user what is and isn't PI/OGC, you are effectively saying, "hey, go download the SRD, then read it all, and then figure out for yourself what you think is derivative".
Referring to another product that is not packaged as part of the single commercial unit within your distribution would probably not be very cool. Without owning that other product the reader could not clearly figure out what is and is not OGC.
<<Then you could have a designation like, "This product is entirely OGC,>
however everything derived from [licensed source or PD source x] is PI."
>
While I don't agree that a child with a highlighter should be the standard for a clear designation of an OGC, I think saying, "hey, if you are fortunate enough to own this other product then you _might_ come to the same determination about OGC as I would," is entirely insufficient.
If don't want a complicated OGC declaration then declare just your trademarks and product titles as PI, and then OGC the rest of the document.
But I think you're headed down the wrong path if you try to shortcut your OGC declaration to save yourself work. The OGL is about clarity, even if the clear indications are a little on the long side to explain.
I am not a lawyer, but if you are gonna try to use an OGC declaration like this then I'd suggest you get a lawyer and have him scrutinize the OGL and your product.
I think if anything, while people around here can and do sometimes disagree upon the meaning of "clearly indicated", some vague description of being derivative of a product that the user may not possess probably just doesn't cut it.
YMMV
Lee
