Usually the names and things that are changed are not in the OGL at all thus the reason for changing the name on the first place.

For example. Official 5e stat block lists "Actions" as a heading. Primeval Thule couldn't use this and instead uses "Combat Actions". It's a common loophole.

The purpose of the OGL is to declare what third parties can use. Everything declared as open content for the OGL is usable "as is".

Some publishers have been criticized in the past for "crippled OGL" declarations because they basically kept the full text of Feats and the like closed instead of open when other content was open.

Paizo makes just about all rules content open... only some names that use proprietary names (such as Golarion countries, deities, NPCs, and such) are closed, and need to be re-named.

Terms like "Feat" and such.. I am not sure they can individually be protected. The overall stat-block format CAN be, but that would not affect the names of categories. If you're really concerned, consult a lawyer about it.

5e is claiming "Actions" as product identity? Really?

Generally that won't fly legally. They can certainly claim things like the Gith races or the Beholders but a common English word? I think some lawyer at Hasbro lost it.

I havn't got into the nitty gritty legalities of it.

My concern though, if I'm entering data for 3rd parties (which I am) I need to replicate their current format. I don't have a right to change that and work on the assumption that they have already made all the checks and balances on their end to legally release their work.

Therefore I copy everything as it is. Just because I know where something should go doesn't mean that's where i put it. I have to assume that there's a reason it was not put there in the first place. I also post the legal agreement.

Ahhhh.

Good luck with that.

Isn't the point of having published information in RealmWorks that all the data is presented in a consistent manner?

The transition from paper/PDF to RealmWorks will always involve re-arranging the data to a certain extent, otherwise the data isn't much more useful than just remaining in a PDF.

Deleted

Some time ago, I predicted that at least some publishers might have unreasonable expectations that their Realm Works content would look and be organized just like their PDF content. I think that represents not really "getting" the differences, because Realm Works is a different kind of delivery (living document vs. static PDF).

I gave an example about a year ago, in which I cited a paragraph in Rise of the Runelords that contained a mix of multiple bits of information as well as GM directions. All told, the one paragraph really should be broken up into about 10 snippets in Realm Works ... at least one of which was GM directions.

This is very true and is definitely true or was true of one publisher getting material ready for the CM. It contributed to my deciding to stop doing data entry for him.

The point that needs to be understood here is some 3rd party publishers have no choice. Again with Primeval Thule 5e as an example. This was published pre OGL and SRD. Same with fifth edition foes. They couldn't even write that it was a 5e supplement.

I think the content guidelines need to consider and address this in regards to categories at least. Unless the publisher re does the content with updated legal text it's not possible for them simply to adhere to the categories within Realm Works.