D&D General So what about the SRDs?

[bedir than]

Except neither of those use "withdraw" as a term, meaning that they don't address that particular point. (My saying that, it should be clear, is a reference to how the OGL could obviously not be revoked, and yet WotC's threat of doing so was based around the idea that it didn't expressly say it was irrevocable.)

again, this is answered.

Actual lawyers wrote this

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

 

[Alzrius]

again, this is answered.

Actual lawyers wrote this

Frequently Asked Questions - Creative Commons

creativecommons.org

Again, that doesn't speak to "withdraw" as a concept.

 

[bedir than]

Again, that doesn't speak to "withdraw" as a concept.

It explicitly covers your invented scenario

"Once something has been published under a CC license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the duration of applicable copyright and similar rights."

There is absolutely no situation where something could be 'withdrawn.' Because the reality of language is that once put in the CC it is there and anyone can use it until the copyright expires.
This isn't a hypothetical.

 

[Alzrius]

It explicitly covers your invented scenario

No, it doesn't. Hence why that term isn't used.

"Once something has been published under a CC license, licensees may continue using it according to the license terms for the duration of applicable copyright and similar rights."

Which says nothing about the publisher withdrawing it at a later date.

There is absolutely no situation where something could be 'withdrawn.'

That's for a judge to decide, is the point.

Because the reality of language is that once put in the CC it is there and anyone can use it until the copyright expires.
This isn't a hypothetical.

The "reality of the language" is what a judge says it is. More importantly, until such a judicial declaration is made, you're not in a position to say what that ruling will be.

 

[bedir than]

No, it doesn't. Hence why that term isn't used.

Which says nothing about the publisher withdrawing it at a later date.

That's for a judge to decide, is the point.

The "reality of the language" is what a judge says it is. More importantly, until such a judicial declaration is made, you're not in a position to say what that ruling will be.

And there is relevant case law as Internet Brands claimed that their previous CC content was no longer CC when they bought it from a previous company.
The claim that the content was no longer CC after purchase was declared invalid

Creative Commons Legal Database

Explore the Creative Commons Legal Database, a comprehensive resource on legal cases and disputes related to Creative Commons tools and licenses. This database includes case law and legal scholarship that relates to Creative Commons legal tools.

legaldb.creativecommons.org

 

[Alzrius]

And there is relevant case law as Internet Brands claimed that their previous CC content was no longer CC when they bought it from a previous company.
The claim that the content was no longer CC after purchase was declared invalid

Creative Commons Legal Database

Explore the Creative Commons Legal Database, a comprehensive resource on legal cases and disputes related to Creative Commons tools and licenses. This database includes case law and legal scholarship that relates to Creative Commons legal tools.

legaldb.creativecommons.org

That's in no way relevant, as the plaintiff alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy. The hypothetical is an issue of copyright infringement due to publishing under content that was alleged to have been withdrawn. Moreover, the court declared (for most of those allegations, since one was withdrawn) that they lacked subject matter jurisdiction, which is the court's way of saying that they (the Superior Court of California) didn't have the authority to hear the case, and the parties subsequently settled the matter privately.

 

[bedir than]

That's in no way relevant, as the plaintiff alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy. The hypothetical is an issue of copyright infringement due to a withdrawal of content.

The countersuit was that the items were already in CC, including the trademark. That judgment came from a judge.

It was in fact a case of a party attempting to withdraw from the Commons. A judge ruled in favor of that not being permitted.

The case is there to research for anyone who wants to understand the tests of the Commons.

 

[Alzrius]

The countersuit was that the items were already in CC, including the trademark. That judgment came from a judge.

No, no judgment came from a judge. The "countersuit" was a request for a declaratory judgment, and nothing on that page says they got it, since as I told you before the court declared that they (the court) lacked subject matter jurisdiction. No judgment was made.

It was in fact a case of a party attempting to withdraw from the Commons. A judge ruled in favor of that not being permitted.

No, no ruling was made. Go read the page you linked to: "...the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed the remainder of Internet Brand’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Wikimedia and Internet Brands settled their state court dispute."

The case is there to research for anyone who wants to understand the tests of the Commons.

You don't seem to understand what that case signifies.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

@Alzrius @Uni-the-Unicorn!

Knock it off, you two…and anyone else considering jumping in.

 

[LaTia J]

@LaTia J

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

15 minutes late with Starbucks has nothing on me. (I'm so sorry; I was out for my birthday and didn't see this until Saturday!)

This is one of the times I must disappoint and tell you that I can't answer that question, HOWEVER. The answer is coming soon. So soon. Trust me.