D&D General So what about the SRDs?

[bedir than]

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.

Per Wizards

What is Creative Commons?

Creative Commons is a nonprofit that writes open-source licenses. These licenses are standardized, widely accepted, and trusted around the world. The CC-BY-4.0 license we chose to use is also irrevocable and Wizards can’t modify it. You can read more on the Creative Commons website.

 

[Alzrius]

Per Wizards

Also per Wizards

In consideration for agreeing to use this License,the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

 

[Reynard]

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.

But it isn't separate. As such, it's a nonsensical hypothetical.

 

[Alzrius]

But it isn't separate. As such, it's a nonsensical hypothetical.

Except that it is separate. Hence, it's not a nonsense hypothetical for demonstrating why the legal aspects are a different consideration from the effect of making such a threat, regardless of the threat's validity.

 

[Rabulias]

The tables are part of the SRD. The SRD also includes loads of proper names (like I mentioned, mostly monster names). And since they are in the SRD, you can publish that material using the SRD and not be required to use only the DM's Guild as per that agreement. The DM's Guild has more, sure, but we're talking about what is in the SRD, and the things I mentioned are, and are reasons why one would use the SRD in the first place to answer Reynard's question.

Maybe I am being pedantic, or maybe we are talking past each other. When I say "proper name" I mean IP content names like Mordenkainen, Bigby, Melf, Evard, Elminster, Raistlin, etc. Those names do not appear in the 5.1 CC SRD, and even if they did in passing, it does not grant you the right to use those characters in an SRD-only product.

 

[mamba]

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still release their own original (i.e. non-derivative) material under the license even if other released materials are withdrawn; you can't do that with a license that's been revoked altogether.

but the CC becomes pointless if people can just withdraw their stuff whenever they feel like it. It is easily as dead as the OGL currently is if this happened

 

[Alzrius]

but the CC becomes pointless if people can just withdraw their stuff whenever they feel like it. It is easily as dead as the OGL currently is if this happened

"Easily as" is not the same thing as being revoked. You might say that's a technical difference, but such technicalities are extremely salient where the law is concerned. (And, of course, the OGL isn't dead, having had new products released under it as recently as last week.)

 

[mamba]

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.

yeah, I doubt it would have a chilling effect. WotC is peanuts when it comes to the CC. They can do that with the OGL as the big fish in the TTRPG pond, but with the CC they are a sardine in the ocean

 

[mamba]

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).

it's not about the SRD, it's about the enforcability of the CC

 

[mamba]

"Easily as" is not the same thing as being revoked. You might say that's a technical difference, but such technicalities are extremely salient where the law is concerned. (And, of course, the OGL isn't dead, having had new products released under it as recently as last week.)

I know it is not revoked, but the point remains, it would be undermined, and more importantly, WotC would be eaten alive if they tried it. They could maybe bully their way through the OGL, but they are in no position to try this with the CC