WotC Shannon Appelcline the layoffs and the OGL fiasco.

[Parmandur]

No doubt, but that doesn't mean they need to do many passes with said comb.

The older SRDs were deliberately constructed to only have nothing but Open Game Content in them, whereas the 5E SRD was apparently doing double-duty as not just an SRD, but also the "basic" version of 5E, and so had Product Identity as well.

The 3.0, 3.5, and d20 Modern SRDs don't do that; they're pre-constructed to just be rules and other mechanics that WotC was already fine with putting out there (although the d20 Modern SRD does have a few organizations and individual characters that it releases, apparently deliberately so).

I am not sure, and clearly neither was Brinks. It does make sense to me that the people who have the expertise to that pass are currently writing the new Core books, and those deadlines are frankly going to be a higher priority. I hope to hear more about the old Ed SRDs in CC over the anniversary year.

 

[Alzrius]

I am not sure, and clearly neither was Brinks.

Well fortunately, there's a pretty easy way to be sure. Just look at any of the files in the attached zip, and double check that they say "This material is Open Game Content, and is licensed for public use under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a." at the top of them. If they do, then they're free of Wizards of the Coast's Product Identity. At that point it's just a matter of putting them under the CC license.

 

[Dire Bare]

Depends on your definition of falsehood.

Okay.

 

[delericho]

Thinking about complex longterm projects in Boolean terms makes no sense. Missing a deadline us not an active lie (which is what falsehood means) if there was an intention to meet it originally.

There's also the detail of what, if anything, was actually promised. Unless someone specifically said that they would get the 3.x SRDs under CC by the end of the year (as opposed to "we'll try", "we'll look into it", or "hopefully by..." - all of which I would think are much more likely), then there's no question of a lie here.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

There's also the detail of what, if anything, was actually promised. Unless someone specifically said that they would get the 3.x SRDs under CC by the end of the year (as opposed to "we'll try", "we'll look into it", or "hopefully by..." - all of which I would think are much more likely), then there's no question of a lie here.

There's no question of a lie anyway. Saying something that isn't true isn't always lying. Only on the internet are people utterly and completely never allowed to be in error, or they're lying. As long as it was the intent and the expectation when Brink said it, he wasn't lying. If it doesn't happen then he was just wrong. Things probably changed since he said what he said. Also "we'll try" is pretty much always implied by anyone saying that they'll do anything. One can't always foresee all the possible pitfalls in the moment.

Now, it would be smart to come forward and update us on the current intentions and expected timelines, of course! But it would be hard to do that if the answer is up in the air.

 

[Umbran]

I think you are being intentionally obtuse and argumentative. Do you happen to work for Hasbro?

Mod note:
Assertions of the form, "You cannot disagree with me unless you have an ulterior motive," are incredibly rude, and will get you a fast ticket out of a conversation - you are done in this discussion.

We require folks to treat each other with a modicum of respect. Do not try to support your own points by tearing down other people.

 

[LordEntrails]

Thinking about complex longterm projects in Boolean terms makes no sense. Missing a deadline us not an active lie (which is what falsehood means) if there was an intention to meet it originally.
<snip>
No, that's absurd. Projects miss deadlines all the time, that doesn't mean the original deadline was a falsehood.

What's absurd to me is insisting that one definition of a word is the only one that anyone is allowed to use. Connotations are an important part of understanding if one wishes to communicate with diverse people.

 

[Parmandur]

What's absurd to me is insisting that one definition of a word is the only one that anyone is allowed to use. Connotations are an important part of understanding if one wishes to communicate with diverse people.

The connotation of "falsehood" is intentional deceit, which is a bit over the top in this context.

 

[gban007]

The connotation of "falsehood" is intentional deceit, which is a bit over the top in this context.

Especially when original comment was that 'lied about capitulating' drawing a direct line between lie and falsehood.

 

[delericho]

There's no question of a lie anyway.

Well, unless they did indeed make the promise while knowing they had no intention of actually carrying it through. I don't think that's what happened here, but I'm too old and too cynical, and have been on the receiving end of too many of those promises (from others, not WotC), to discount the possibility entirely.