D&D General So what about the SRDs?

[Dire Bare]

Fair enough. But also, so far, no classic SRDs are in CC. I'm just not giving them credit for stuff until they actually do stuff.

(Also, full transparency, I personally don't care if the classic SRDs ever go into CC.)

True, no classic SRDs have been released into CC yet.

Credit? As far as we know, WotC's intent has not changed, only their timeline. Credit is not due, certainly, but good thing no one is giving them credit for things they have not yet accomplished.

 

[SlyFlourish]

It was not my intent to steer this thread to the old WotC OGL kerfuffle debate. Sorry about that.

As another aside: I wonder if Bastions will make the SRD.

I wouldn't expect anything more than what's in the 5.1 SRD just updated with new stats and new language. But we'll see!

 

[SlyFlourish]

Yes, it is.

Incorrect. You seem to be ignoring that I specifically posited a situation whereby WotC would be "withdrawing" their own content, i.e. the 5.1 SRD, not revoking the entirety of the CC (since, as noted, the entire idea in that hypothetical is them purporting that the word "withdraw" isn't mentioned in the license, and so isn't prohibited, meaning that the license is otherwise valid). Hence, there'd be no standing for other companies which do not use the 5.1 SRD to get involved, beyond potentially submitting amicus briefs (though I suppose they could bankroll someone who does have such standing).

You've also conveniently overlooked how that was an example of a dubious action on WotC's part, akin to the dubious reasoning they gave for supposedly being able to revoke the OGL. Expressing skepticism means that you're agreeing with my premise.

Which makes it rather odd that you don't seem to realize that. Given that you can't seem to get the basic facts of your argument straight, I'm not sure why you think anyone here should put any faith in your interpretation of how that would go.

"The licenses and CC0 cannot be revoked. This means once you apply a CC license to your material, anyone who receives it may rely on that license for as long as the material is protected by copyright, even if you later stop distributing it."

About CC Licenses - Creative Commons

Creative Commons licenses give everyone from individual creators to large institutions a standardized way to grant the public permission to use their creative work under copyright law. From the reuser’s perspective, the presence of a Creative Commons license on a copyrighted work answers the...

creativecommons.org

Section 2 – Scope.

1. License grant .
   1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
      1. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and
      2. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material."

Legal Code - Attribution 4.0 International - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

 

[Umbran]

Yes, it is.

Incorrect. You seem to be ignoring that I specifically posited a situation whereby WotC would be "withdrawing" their own content, i.e. the 5.1 SRD, not revoking the entirety of the CC (since, as noted, the entire idea in that hypothetical is them purporting that the word "withdraw" isn't mentioned in the license, and so isn't prohibited, meaning that the license is otherwise valid).

I am not ignoring it. I think that the content owner being allowed to "withdraw" is not functionally different from canceling the licence for that content.

Since the word odoes not exist in the licence, we cannt play with the word definiton - we must look at the function. And someone withdrawing content from the licence means that everyone else using the content previously released under it would suddenly be infringing, and open to lawsuit, without notice. Which is hogwash that big players can't allow.

 

[Alzrius]

"The licenses and CC0 cannot be revoked. This means once you apply a CC license to your material, anyone who receives it may rely on that license for as long as the material is protected by copyright, even if you later stop distributing it."

About CC Licenses - Creative Commons

Creative Commons licenses give everyone from individual creators to large institutions a standardized way to grant the public permission to use their creative work under copyright law. From the reuser’s perspective, the presence of a Creative Commons license on a copyrighted work answers the...

creativecommons.org

Which says nothing about "withdrawing" material; thanks for confirming that.

Section 2 – Scope.

1. License grant .
   1. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to:
      1. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and
      2. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material."

Legal Code - Attribution 4.0 International - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

And also doesn't use the word "withdraw," particularly in the sense of being unable to withdraw it.

I'll also point out that the entire "withdraw" idea is meant to be an example of the sort of bad legal argument WotC could make with CC that they did with the OGL.

I am not ignoring it. I think that the content owner being allowed to "withdraw" is not functionally different from canceling the licence for that content.

Which is the sort of opinion that a judge would need to make a ruling on, and hence puts the entire scenario into the same realm of speculative uncertainty that we found ourselves with insofar as the OGL debacle went.

Since the word odoes not exist in the licence, we cannt play with the word definiton - we must look at the function. And someone withdrawing content from the licence means that everyone else using the content previously released under it would suddenly be infringing, and open to lawsuit, without notice. Which is hogwash that big players can't allow.

The ideas of "we can't play with the definition if it doesn't appear in the license" and "so we therefore must look at the function" are once again your opinion on a legal matter, which means that it's going to be up to a court to adjudicate. The entire question of whether or not withdrawing content means that anyone who'd previously used the license would be infringing is likewise highly suspect, since even the purported notice contained the clause of "everyone publishing 5.1 SRD materials after the date given would be infringing" rather than any previous content being infringing. Hence, we can do away with the idea that the "big players" would even be willing to get involved (let alone able to, since they're not party to the circumstances outlined).

All of which is to say that this would, as I said, be the same situation in which we found ourselves during the OGL debacle: where WotC issues a statement that ultimately causes a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that has a chilling effect on third-party publishers, regardless of the fact that WotC doesn't own the CC like they do the OGL.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Which says nothing about "withdrawing" material; thanks for confirming that.

And also doesn't use the word "withdraw," particularly in the sense of being unable to withdraw it.

I'll also point out that the entire "withdraw" idea is meant to be an example of the sort of bad legal argument WotC could make with CC that they did with the OGL.


Which is the sort of opinion that a judge would need to make a ruling on, and hence puts the entire scenario into the same realm of speculative uncertainty that we found ourselves with insofar as the OGL debacle went.

The ideas of "we can't play with the definition if it doesn't appear in the license" and "so we therefore must look at the function" are once again your opinion on a legal matter, which means that it's going to be up to a court to adjudicate. The entire question of whether or not withdrawing content means that anyone who'd previously used the license would be infringing is likewise highly suspect, since even the purported notice contained the clause of "everyone publishing 5.1 SRD materials after the date given would be infringing" rather than any previous content being infringing. Hence, we can do away with the idea that the "big players" would even be willing to get involved (let alone able to, since they're not party to the circumstances outlined).

All of which is to say that this would, as I said, be the same situation in which we found ourselves during the OGL debacle: where WotC issues a statement that ultimately causes a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) that has a chilling effect on third-party publishers, regardless of the fact that WotC doesn't own the CC like they do the OGL.

I'm not saying this to be snarky and maybe you are a lawyer who really understands this stuff, but are you implying you found a hole in the Creative Commons that any creator of previously released material can use to sue those who used it? All the CC lawyers missed this across the four current versions of the CC? All the copyleft trolls / bad actors who tried to use CC to extort money out of people with a loophole in version 3 -- they didn't find this either?

You're saying that billions of pieces of IP out there used in millions of platforms are all currently vulnerable to this loophole?

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not saying this to be snarky and maybe you are a lawyer who really understands this stuff, but are you implying you found a hole in the Creative Commons that any creator of previously released material can use to sue those who used it?

No, I'm not. I'm literally holding up that "withdraw" argument as an example of an unsound legal argument which nevertheless potentially seems just plausible enough to potentially frighten publishers off, akin to WotC's argument that they can "revoke" the OGL.

 

[SlyFlourish]

No, I'm not. I'm literally holding up that "withdraw" argument as an example of an unsound legal argument which nevertheless potentially seems just plausible enough to potentially frighten publishers off, akin to WotC's argument that they can "revoke" the OGL.

Has anyone ever tried it? If they have, have they ever succeeded? Or is this totally hypothetical?

Is the concept of "withdraw" an actual legal bit of movement in contract law?

Or are we just making up things to worry about?

 

[Alzrius]

Has anyone ever tried it? If they have, have they ever succeeded? Or is this totally hypothetical?

It's hypothetical the same way that revoking the OGL is hypothetical; that's the entire point.

Is the concept of "withdraw" an actual legal bit of movement in contract law?

That's the wrong question to ask; the right question is whether or not it's an "actual legal bit of movement" to the same extent that revocation is under contract law.

Or are we just making up things to worry about?

If you're actually worried about that, then you've completely misunderstood what's being discussed.

 

[mamba]

You seem to be ignoring that I specifically posited a situation whereby WotC would be "withdrawing" their own content, i.e. the 5.1 SRD, not revoking the entirety of the CC

there is no difference between these two. If WotC can withdraw their content, so can anyone else