D&D General So what about the SRDs?

[Alzrius]

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

Again, this presumes a lot about the "bigger fish" being able to do anything. As I noted before, they can file amicus briefs or bankroll someone else's legal bills, and that's pretty much it.

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

No, it's about the SRD. Because if that's all that's being threatened to be withdrawn, then anyone who doesn't use it has no standing to protest that via any kind of legal mechanism (the aforementioned methods notwithstanding).

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

What does "eaten alive" mean in legal terms? Because this statement doesn't seem to know what it means in any kind of practical context.

 

[mamba]

Again, this presumes a lot about the "bigger fish" being able to do anything. As I noted before, they can file amicus briefs or bankroll someone else's legal bills, and that's pretty much it.

bankrolling is a pretty big thing...

No, it's about the SRD. Because if that's all that's being threatened to be withdrawn

what is being threatened is the whole CC license, the SRD is irrelevant here

What does "eaten alive" mean in legal terms?

outspent 100:1 on the legal resource side

 

[Alzrius]

bankrolling is a pretty big thing...

It's also a presumptive thing; just because they could pay for someone else's legal bills in a case that doesn't directly affect them doesn't mean that they will (and taking such a thing on faith isn't going to reassure most publishers).

what is being threatened is the whole CC license, the SRD is irrelevant here

Except it's already been established that the whole CC license is not being threatened.

outspent 100:1

Not really; see above.

 

[mamba]

It's also a presumptive thing; just because they could pay for someone else's legal bills in a case that doesn't directly affect them

it does directly affect them, either the license is enforceable, or it is not

Except it's already been established that the whole CC license is not being threatened.

no, that is your claim, I'd say the opposite is very clearly true. An unenforceable license is as good as no license

 

[Reynard]

Except it's already been established that the whole CC license is not being threatened.

This has not been "established." You simply don't accept the reality of the situation. If CC is not enforceable, it is dead, and that is a really big problem.

 

[Spellslinging Sellsword]

@Alzrius I think you're on an island by yourself in your argument because the rest of us don't believe it to be something that will ever be a reality. I mean, sure anyone can sue anyone for anything in the U.S., but it doesn't take very much legal acumen to rebut the level of idiocy that would be if Wizards attempted it. Sure send a C&D and watch people tell you to naughty word off. But they won't file a lawsuit because it would be non-sensical and moronic.

 

[Alzrius]

it does directly affect them, either the license is enforceable, or it is not

It does not directly affect them if content they don't use under the CC license is withdrawn.

no, that is your claim, I'd say the opposite is very clearly true.

Incorrect. You see it as being equivalent to that, but it's already been proven that's not the case, even if you feel otherwise.

An unenforceable license is as good as no license

"As good as" is not the same thing as "actually being." You can say that "A is as good as B," but that does not mean that "A is B." Hence the aforementioned "already been proven."

This has not been "established."

Except it has been. When someone says that something is "as good as" something else, that implicitly acknowledges that it's not actually that other thing.

You simply don't accept the reality of the situation.

On the contrary, the people arguing otherwise are not accepting the reality of the situation, since they're arguing that if something is "as good as" another thing, then it must actually be that other thing, which is self-evidently not the case. Otherwise there wouldn't be a distinction to be made between "as good as" and "actually being."

If CC is not enforceable, it is dead, and that is a really big problem.

It's still "enforceable" per se, it's just that it has no provision explicitly denying that content can be "withdrawn."

@Alzrius I think you're on an island by yourself in your argument because the rest of us don't believe it to be something that will ever be a reality.

Which is what we all said about WotC trying to revoke the OGL before they went and tried to revoke the OGL.

But as I said before, that's not the point. The point is that WotC's threat about revoking the OGL was always legally dubious, as dubious as someone claiming they can "withdraw" content from the CC; and yet that dubious claim (which never resulted in any legal filings) was still enough to shake the entire industry; hence why any ideas that the CC is somehow a better/safer license because of its legal specifics are similarly misplaced, because those specifics don't matter any more than they did for the OGL in the face of a bogus threat when it comes from a huge corporation.

I mean, sure anyone can sue anyone for anything in the U.S., but it doesn't take very much legal acumen to rebut the level of idiocy that would be if Wizards attempted it. Sure send a C&D and watch people tell you to naughty word off. But they won't file a lawsuit because it would be non-sensical and moronic.

They didn't have to file a lawsuit over "revoking" the OGL to have a serious impact on the industry, is my point. There's no reason that's any less true for the CC.

 

[mamba]

It does not directly affect them if content they don't use under the CC license is withdrawn.

invalidating the CC does directly affect them, it is completely immaterial which document caused that

Incorrect. You see it as being equivalent to that, but it's already been proven that's not the case, even if you feel otherwise.

you saying something is not exactly proof

"As good as" is not the same thing as "actually being." You can say that "A is as good as B," but that does not mean that "A is B." Hence the aforementioned "already been proven."

nope, that is just you not understanding that the two are equivalent despite not being identical

It's still "enforceable" per se, it's just that it has no provision explicitly denying that content can be "withdrawn."

then what exactly is 'enforcable per se' at that point? I guess you put enforcable in quotes for a reason....

 

[Alzrius]

invalidating the CC does directly affect them, it is completely immaterial which document caused that

Except the CC is not being invalidated, since it makes no provision expressly denying that content can be "withdrawn."

you saying something is not exactly proof

Except you're the one who said it. You said "as good as," which necessarily implies that A is not B.

nope, that is just you not understanding that the two are equivalent despite not being identical

Wrong, that is just you not understanding that something being "equivalent" to something else doesn't mean it's actually something else. But that's not how contract law works. A is not B, even if you insist that it's "as good as" B.

 

[mamba]

Except the CC is not being invalidated, since it makes no provision expressly denying that content can be "withdrawn."

Except you're the one who said it. You said "as good as," which necessarily implies that A is not B.

Wrong, that is just you not understanding that (because you think) something is "equivalent" to something else, that means it actually is something else. But that's not how the law works. A is not B, even if you insist that it's "as good as" B.

we are going in circles, I disagree with every last bit of your take, and you repeating the same 'argument' ad nauseum will not change that. You are simply wrong on all counts. 1 + 1 is not 2, but it is equivalent to 2. An unenforcable license is equivalent to not having a license.