[DF] Holy water seems to have no purpose

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by MKMcArtor

What Company B couldn't do is to make the original Creature Alpha name and statblock as closed content, and it would need to mark in its section 15 (I think that's the one, I don't have an OGL handy) where Creature Alpha came from.

If the full Creature Alpha name and statblock made it into Company B's product, it seems mostly clear that they don't have a choice about marking it in section 15 as having specifically been drawn from Source XYZ under the OGL. The OGL doesn't take away Company A's ownership of Creature Alpha, meaning Company B doesn't get the right to declare that it isn't Open content. AND, importantly, the original Company A printing of Creature Alpha is still Open, so you can just go back to that open source and if Company B tried to take you to court over it, you can point out that you're taking it from this supplement XYZ (cited in your own section 15) just like they did.

There is some confusion over how derivative your Creature Beta would have to be before you could call it closed content and not be violating the license and trampling Company A's rights to the Alpha material. Again, never tested in court, and yeah, the document's about as clear as mud. Does adding two hit dice and 10 HP to the monster (but not adjusting the BAB, saving throws, skills, CR, or anything else) count as "enough"? What about renaming it? Etc.

And of course the other line, the line where Creature Beta stops being a derivative work and starts just being "A work that reminds some people of Creature Alpha" is also extremely fuzzy. But this line has far more legal precedent around it because this is the one where most legal battles over creative works are fought. The addition of stat blocks makes it muddy again, because lists and charts are very very difficult to copyright.