Based on the 3.5 SRD I believe WotC interprets PI as being terms that are forbidden from any work that derives off of the work that claims the terms as PI. The term in question does not even have to exist in a section of OGC, or even appear in the work at all.
I can't remember if it was here or on OGF-D20-l, but i pointed out to just such a comment that it may not matter what WotC believes, if it is in conflict with the license. Unlike the D20STL, they can't change it at a whim, so the actual written meaning matters, not just what WotC wishes it meant. I concur that that is apparently what WotC wishes PI to be. I suspect they haven't a legal leg to stand on (no--that's hyperbole; but i do think they're wrong, based on the opinions of those on this list with legal training, which, coupled with the general legal standard of interpreting a poorly-written contract against the authoring party, makes it pretty likely they'd lose should it come to court).
After all, I haven't noticed many of the following terms actually appear in the 3.5 files. I just noticed Carrion Crawler is on the list (mostly because I had run an adventure including one), and Carrion Crawler doesn't actually appear in the 3.5 SRD (while it was in 3.0).
I can say with some confidence that not a single term in the PI declaratino attached to the revised D20SRD actually appears in the work. (i recently finished a PDF of it, and proofed it as i went, so i'm fairly certain i would've noticed any of those terms if they had been in there).
--
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webpages.charter.net/woodelph/
RECOLLECT, v. To recall with additions something not previously known. --Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
