D&D General So what about the SRDs?

[Alzrius]

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

There's a big difference between those two. Other people can still release their own original (i.e. non-derivative) material under the license even if other released materials are withdrawn; you can't do that with a license that's been revoked altogether.

 

[Reynard]

There's a big difference between those two. Other people can still release their own original (i.e. non-derivative) material under the license even if other released materials are withdrawn; you can't do that with a license that's been revoked altogether.

What they are saying is someone being able to withdraw the license from previously CC'd material would effectively kill CC and a whole lot of stuff, especially software related, would be screwed.

 

[Alzrius]

What they are saying is someone being able to withdraw the license from previously CC'd material would effectively kill CC and a whole lot of stuff, especially software related, would be screwed.

I understand that, but the "effectively" in that sentence is an acknowledgment of that being an indirect consequence; one party being able to withdraw their material wouldn't immediately revoke or otherwise invalidate the license itself. It would just make it possible for other people to withdraw their own material, including those who've released material that other people count on.

But that's not the point.

The point is that merely making the threat of withdrawing their own material—when that threat comes from a multinational corporation—doesn't need to result in any actual court documents being filed to cause sufficient fear, uncertainty, and doubt that the result is a chilling effect among publishers, even if the ability to follow through on the aforementioned threat is legally dubious. Exactly like what happened with the OGL. Hence why the idea of the CC somehow being safer than the OGL is an illusion.

 

[Alzrius]

@LaTia J

I meant to ask this before, but is there any plan to release the 5.2 SRD under the OGL?

 

[Reynard]

I understand that, but the "effectively" in that sentence is an acknowledgment of that being an indirect consequence; one party being able to withdraw their material wouldn't immediately revoke or otherwise invalidate the license itself. It would just make it possible for other people to withdraw their own material, including those who've released material that other people count on.

But that's not the point.

The point is that merely making the threat of withdrawing their own material—when that threat comes from a multinational corporation—doesn't need to result in any actual court documents being filed to cause sufficient fear, uncertainty, and doubt that the result is a chilling effect among publishers, even if the ability to follow through on the aforementioned threat is legally dubious. Exactly like what happened with the OGL. Hence why the idea of the CC somehow being safer than the OGL is an illusion.

WotC would draw the attention of Microsoft at least, and that would be enough to undo that "chilling effect."

 

[Alzrius]

WotC would draw the attention of Microsoft at least, and that would be enough to undo that "chilling effect."

Not really. Even if we presume that you're right about Microsoft caring, they don't publish anything with the 5.1 SRD, and so lack any kind of standing to be involved, meaning that they have no reassurance to offer (beyond the aforementioned amicus briefs of bankrolling someone else's legal efforts).

 

[bedir than]

Not really. Even if we presume that you're right about Microsoft caring, they don't publish anything with the 5.1 SRD, and so lack any kind of standing to be involved, meaning that they have no reassurance to offer (beyond the aforementioned amicus briefs of bankrolling someone else's legal efforts).

If Wizards were to attempt to show that the CC is revocable it would invalidate licenses from companies that make the multi-billion dollar Hasbro look quiant.

 

[Alzrius]

If Wizards were to attempt to show that the CC is revocable it would invalidate licenses from companies that make the multi-billion dollar Hasbro look quiant.

I specifically said that the hypothetical did not involve revoking the CC.

 

[bedir than]

I specifically said that the hypothetical did not involve revoking the CC.

If one org can remove things from the CC that means any org could. It would destroy the very concept of the Commons.
And that's why no org will do it.

 

[Alzrius]

If one org can remove things from the CC that means any org could. It would destroy the very concept of the Commons.
And that's why no org will do it.

Which, to once again reiterate what I said before, is a separate consideration from the consequences of simply making the threat, however dubious it might be.