D&D (2024) Anyone mentioned that SRD5.2 got no Knight?

[Scribe]

A mistake, not an issue.

 

[LaTia J]

I can't help but hear the title of this to the tune of The Longest John's "Got No Beard".

But yeah, we're aware, and an update is forthcoming.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I can't help but hear the title of this to the tune of The Longest John's "Got No Beard".

But yeah, we're aware, and an update is forthcoming.

SRD 5.2.1?

 

[Theory of Games]

SRD 5.2.1?

Yup

 

[D-03-109 MeltingLove]

I can't help but hear the title of this to the tune of The Longest John's "Got No Beard".

But yeah, we're aware, and an update is forthcoming.

Oh, btw please look the Charger feat(not in srd)? My friend and I have argument about how the Speed increases. It's not clear about 'for that action' part.

 

[pemerton]

Once a document is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY-4.0), it is permanently available under those terms. Wizards of the Coast cannot revoke or alter SRD 5.2 or remove it from Creative Commons.

This is not quite technically accurate.

WotC can decline to offer new licences at any time. What it can't do is revoke any licences that have already been created - the way that licences are created is set out in the terms of the licence itself:

By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License ("Public License").​

And each of these licences is irrevocable: section 2(A)(1).

In addition, when a licence comes into being between WotC and an exerciser of the "Licensed Rights", the following provision (section 2(a)(5)(A)) becomes relevant:

Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.​

So each person who receives licensed content from a licensee is also deemed to receive an offer from WotC; and then, by exercising the "Licensed Rights", they become a licensee who is bound by the terms of the licence. This is the key provision, as it means that even if WotC ceases to directly offer licences, offers can be made on its behalf simply by having a prior licensee disseminate licensed content.

One academic discussion of this from a legal perspective is Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, 'The New Servitudes' (2008) 96(3) Georgetown Law Journal 885.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is not quite technically accurate.

WotC can decline to offer new licences at any time. What it can't do is revoke any licences that have already been created - the way that licences are created is set out in the terms of the licence itself:

By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License ("Public License").​

And each of these licences is irrevocable: section 2(A)(1).

In addition, when a licence comes into being between WotC and an exerciser of the "Licensed Rights", the following provision (section 2(a)(5)(A)) becomes relevant:

Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.​

So each person who receives licensed content from a licensee is also deemed to receive an offer from WotC; and then, by exercising the "Licensed Rights", they become a licensee who is bound by the terms of the licence. This is the key provision, as it means that even if WotC ceases to directly offer licences, offers can be made on its behalf simply by having a prior licensee disseminate licensed content.

One academic discussion of this from a legal perspective is Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, 'The New Servitudes' (2008) 96(3) Georgetown Law Journal 885.

Perhaps this makes me morbid, but upon reading this I immediately had the thought, "Does that mean that if WotC were to kill every person who has been a recipient of the Licensed Material, then the license itself would lapse?" Obviously that is a completely ridiculous notion, but it does imply there could still be corner cases where a Creative Commons license could, in fact, truly end. Like what happened to the poetry of Sappho; her particular variant of Greek (Aeolic) was rather removed from the Attic and Doric that would form the foundation of Koine, and was difficult for later Roman scholars to work with. Her works were lost not because they weren't beloved but because people couldn't read them anymore, so they stopped being copied.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps this makes me morbid, but upon reading this I immediately had the thought, "Does that mean that if WotC were to kill every person who has been a recipient of the Licensed Material, then the license itself would lapse?"

Well, strictly speaking there is no the licence. Each party who accepts WotC's offer of a licence enjoys a licence from WotC. (Of course, all these licences have the same terms, namely, the terms of CC-BY 4.0.)

But yes, if every licensed party was eliminated (remembering that many are corporations, and so cannot be killed in any literal sense) and/or renounced its licensed rights, then WotC would be the only one left who could offer licences. If, at that point, they ceased to make such offers, then that would be that: no one would be licensed to use the text of the SRD 5.2.

Obviously that is a completely ridiculous notion, but it does imply there could still be corner cases where a Creative Commons license could, in fact, truly end. Like what happened to the poetry of Sappho; her particular variant of Greek (Aeolic) was rather removed from the Attic and Doric that would form the foundation of Koine, and was difficult for later Roman scholars to work with. Her works were lost not because they weren't beloved but because people couldn't read them anymore, so they stopped being copied.

I'm not sure about the comparison to the loss of linguistic knowledge: I mean, if the ability to read English was lost, the fact that there were parties who enjoyed licensed rights in respect of the SRD 5.2 wouldn't seem to matter very much!

I don't know US copyright law especially well (or even Australian copyright law, for that matter); but I assume that it is possible for a copyright owner to renounce their intellectual property rights in the text they have created. But a CC-BY 4.0 licence depends upon the owner of copyright in respect of a work affirming those rights, and granting others a licence to do things (like copying) that are otherwise the exclusive prerogative of the copyright holder.

 

[Theory of Games]

This is not quite technically accurate.

WotC can decline to offer new licences at any time. What it can't do is revoke any licences that have already been created - the way that licences are created is set out in the terms of the licence itself:

By exercising the Licensed Rights (defined below), You accept and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of this Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License ("Public License").​

And each of these licences is irrevocable: section 2(A)(1).

In addition, when a licence comes into being between WotC and an exerciser of the "Licensed Rights", the following provision (section 2(a)(5)(A)) becomes relevant:

Every recipient of the Licensed Material automatically receives an offer from the Licensor to exercise the Licensed Rights under the terms and conditions of this Public License.​

So each person who receives licensed content from a licensee is also deemed to receive an offer from WotC; and then, by exercising the "Licensed Rights", they become a licensee who is bound by the terms of the licence. This is the key provision, as it means that even if WotC ceases to directly offer licences, offers can be made on its behalf simply by having a prior licensee disseminate licensed content.

One academic discussion of this from a legal perspective is Molly Shaffer Van Houweling, 'The New Servitudes' (2008) 96(3) Georgetown Law Journal 885.

The text comes from the SRD website, so ...?

 

[Reynard]

It is crazy to me that even after a quarter of a century, people still have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of an SRD.

It has nothing to do with "concepts." It has to do with literal copying and using of specific text, and derivative content thereof.

The putting "D&D" in the SRD does not threaten their trademark, and them forgetting to put "Knight" in there doesn't have any impact on your ability to include a "knight" in your games/adventure/whatever.