too many ‘you said’ here…
No, I meant what I said you said you said.
you conflated two issues in your previous response, I said WotC could release it under the OGL if they wanted to, and I asked you for an example of why you think it is important to have it under the OGL
No conflation happened. You were the one who purported that I said that you said that WotC needed to make a case, to which you replied that you hadn't said that WotC needed to; I responded to that by saying that I didn't say that you said that WotC needed to, just that you had said that.
You turned that into ‘Repeatedly saying that a "case" needed to be made for releasing the 5.2 SRD under the OGL, only to then agree that no such case was necessary’ which very much does sound like I asked you for a case for WotC to release it, which I never asked for.
Accurately recounting your previous posts is not "turned that into" anything. You asked for a "case," and I gave you one, which you then turned around and said wasn't a case, and when I pointed out that it not only in fact was but also that such a case wasn't relevant to the topic at hand, you agreed with me.
I also never ‘then agreed’ that none is needed, I agreed that WotC could simply release it under CC and OGL from the very start.
Not from the very start, no. You only agreed with that point after I made it; hence why it's an "agreement" per se.
which is why I clarified that I wanted an example about 5 posts back, and the only thing you offered is ‘because potentially someone somewhere wants to use something from it in a product that already takes OGL stuff and then does not have to figure out how to mix two licenses’, which is about as weak as it gets, as far as cases go (and still is not an example)
You're self-evidently wrong about that being not an example, and even more wrong about it being weak. Quite the contrary, that goes to the very heart of the issue, and is so strong that you not only haven't been able to offer a counterpoint, but instead completely dropped your opposition and agreed with my central premise. Which makes this tangent that you're making now quite bizarre.
You keep misrepresenting stuff and I grow tired of having to correct it.
I'm accurately representing everything you said; if you don't care for that, then there's nothing I can do, since you're the one who said it.
Add to this that the discussion will go nowhere even if we did not have to continue going in circles in each reply, and I am not really interested in continuing this.
I don't see how there's any "have to" about any of it, in all honesty, which is another instance of the language you're using not helping to clarify the point(s) in question.
So I bow out and hope I will not get dragged in again
Nobody is "dragging you in" to anything; either reply or don't, at your discretion.
