That's the whole point. In the Mongoose iteration, is it a generic system that encompasses the OTU, along with several others. While "stock" MgT does share some assumptions with the OTU, is is not the OTU.
I don't think you can reasonably imply that MGT -- as currently written -- is a truly generic system (in the same sense that, say, GURPs or Basic Roleplaying is). Assuming, of course, that this is your intention.
As I said in another thread:
[E]ven "universal" systems can imply a great deal by what they include (and what they don't). In other words, "setting-free" is not necessarily the same as "generic".
Classic Traveller is a perfect example of this. When printed, it was clearly setting-free. But it provided a great deal of information on the kind of campaign that would result from using the rules as written. For instance...
1. Feudalism, implied by the social status attribute and the titles associated with high ratings (and the fact that a high social status was an advantage in some careers).
2. Communication limited to speed of travel. Explicitely stated.
3. Interstellar travel costly -- explicit in the starship economics section and implicit in the fact that tech levels were so variable.
4. Relatively "hard" sci-fi -- implied by the absence of tropes like blaster pistols, force fields, raygus, etc. Strongly implied by the fact that firearms are the preferred weapons even into the future.
5. Plentiful energy -- fusion power.
6. Gravitic manipulation -- demonstrated by air/rafts; arguably implied by reactionless thrusters (if you accept the "grav plate" rationale).
7. Human-centric setting -- no rules for aliens.
Etc., etc.
So while the game was setting-free, it imposed a great deal of default settings on a campaign. Of course, the referee was free to deviate from those settings. But clearly, a game dramatically different from the default settings -- Star Wars or Star Trek for instance -- would require a lot of work. For instance, adding lightsabers isn't enough for a Star Wars Traveller campaign. You have to explain why any sane person would carry them in lieu of a shotgun (same is true of blasters). So you have to add better armor, or sooper dodging skills, or whatever. Kinda hard to build a Star Destroyer with LBB2, so you need a Big Darned Starships design system. Gotta add deflector shields. Escape pods. A reactionless starship combat system. Gotta add expansive rules for alien PCs. Etc.
And in another post:
MGT calls itself "Traveller". For many gamers, that term has described a certain setting, the OTU for ~30 years. For others, that term has decribed a series of RPGs with pretty consisten underlying tech assumptions -- jump drive, plausible weaponry, attention to detail on military stuff, etc. Both groups of gamers are reasonable, IMHO, if they expect a game that is (a) called "Traveller" and (b) packaged to evoke the classic edition of Traveller to, in fact, resemble what they have defined as "Traveller" for THREE DECADES.
Now, I happen to think that the decision to make MGT into a universal ruleset is sensible. Why reinvent the wheel every time? But I don't think that the MGT core rules make it clear that this is a generic rules set. Nor is it, in actuality, a generic rules set in any meaningful definition of the term.
So I don't think that is is accurate or helpful to pretend that MGT -- as shipped -- was an explicitely generic game in the same way that GURPS, Hero or Basic Roleplaying was. It may have been intended to be generic, but it didn't ship in that condition. Therefore, insinuating that Old School Traveller fans are somehow being unreasonable isn't itself very reasonable.
