Search results

I respectfully disagree. While the idea that the cast of Seinfeld are awful people is regularly put forward (including by the show's own finale), it always rung hollow to me. Yes, they're often shallow to the point of conceit, but villains? Kramer was in an AIDS walk. George saw a security...

Make sure to confirm how long the warranty on the roof replacement lasts. I had a leak a few years back, and was relieved to find that the warranty on the roof repair the sellers had done was still in effect (albeit just barely).

Only in that I'd default to a random roll if there was no consensus about what was simplest, rather than letting the PC choose. But otherwise I agree that the Strength increase is the simplest, and that the player shouldn't be treated as being permanently under the effect of a potion from then...

I was going to say almost exactly this.

I feel your pain. Boy do I feel your pain.

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...

This is the internet; you don't have to look very far to find someone intent on breaking that record.

In point of fact, you're the one who's wrong on all counts, though I agree that you saying otherwise will not change that.

Except the CC is not being invalidated, since it makes no provision expressly denying that content can be "withdrawn."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

It does not directly affect them if content they don't use under the CC license is withdrawn. 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. "As good as" is not the same thing as "actually being." You can say...

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). Except it's already been established that the whole CC...

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 Because if that's all that's being threatened to be withdrawn, then anyone who...

"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'd prefer a game that does something well, rather than one that does something new.

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.

Also per Wizards

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.

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