D&D General So what about the SRDs?

[Alzrius]

we are going in circles, I disagree with every last bit of your take, and you repeating the same 'argument' ad nauseum will not change that. You are simply wrong on all counts

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.

 

[mamba]

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.

yeah, keep pretending that if it helps you

 

[Alzrius]

yeah, keep pretending that it it helps you

 

[mamba]

 

[Alzrius]

View attachment 402004

 

[bedir than]

Except the CC is not being invalidated, since it makes no provision expressly denying that content can be "withdrawn."

Except of course the Commons addresses this

About CC Licenses - Creative Commons

Creative Commons licenses give everyone from individual creators to large institutions a standardized way to grant the public permission to use their creative work under copyright law. From the reuser’s perspective, the presence of a Creative Commons license on a copyrighted work answers the...

creativecommons.org

And a look at what that means -- their tl;dr is that the new release can only EXPAND material not withdraw

Q: Can You Revoke a Creative Commons License? A: No. Er... Sort Of? Maybe? - The Scholarly Kitchen

A Creative Commons license is irrevocable; it says so right in the license. But it also says you can change your mind and distribute the work differently, or not at all. What does this mean?

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

 

[Staffan]

Except the CC is not being invalidated, since it makes no provision expressly denying that content can be "withdrawn."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 "equivalent" to something else doesn't mean it's actually something else. But that's not how contract law works. A is not B, even if you insist that it's "as good as" B.

If you can withdraw things released under a CC license, the license is useless. The point of the license family is that the content of a work is released under the license, and removing content from that would invalidate the whole thing.

In other words, the point is not that there's a document called "The System Reference Document 5.1" that's CC. The point is that this document has the Barbarian class, the Bard class, the Cleric class, and so on. If the cleric class would be "withdrawn" from the document, that would make the whole process useless.

To use an example in another domain, there's a dude named Kevin MacLeod who runs a site called incompetech – Music and also Graph Paper, where he among other things has a whole lot of royalty-free music available and released under Creative Commons. There are a lot of people who use that music for background in Youtube videos and in other places where some music is needed. Should Kevin decide to "withdraw" certain works, all those videos would suddenly become infringing, and that would mean the license would be pointless.

(As an aside, the website also has a pretty neat graph paper generator you can make all sorts of stuff with.)

 

[bedir than]

Morrus said this earlier, but if you are a publisher looking to make money off of a product using any SRD and any license (OGL, ORC, CC or other) consult a lawyer that specializes in IP, gaming and/or open licenses.

While the whims of the internet can get you started do not press publish unless you have consulted with actual professionals who you have paid.

 

[Alzrius]

Except of course the Commons addresses this

About CC Licenses - Creative Commons

Creative Commons licenses give everyone from individual creators to large institutions a standardized way to grant the public permission to use their creative work under copyright law. From the reuser’s perspective, the presence of a Creative Commons license on a copyrighted work answers the...

creativecommons.org

And a look at what that means -- their tl;dr is that the new release can only EXPAND material not withdraw

Q: Can You Revoke a Creative Commons License? A: No. Er... Sort Of? Maybe? - The Scholarly Kitchen

A Creative Commons license is irrevocable; it says so right in the license. But it also says you can change your mind and distribute the work differently, or not at all. What does this mean?

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

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.)

If you can withdraw things released under a CC license, the license is useless. The point of the license family is that the content of a work is released under the license, and removing content from that would invalidate the whole thing.

No, it wouldn't "invalidate the entire thing" nor would it be "useless." Other content that was released would remain released, and further (non-derivative) content could still be released under it. People having their faith shaken does not equate to it becoming "useless" (or "revoked" or "invalidated" or any similar such term). Insisting that it does doesn't make it so.

In other words, the point is not that there's a document called "The System Reference Document 5.1" that's CC. The point is that this document has the Barbarian class, the Bard class, the Cleric class, and so on. If the cleric class would be "withdrawn" from the document, that would make the whole process useless.

No, that's not the point. The point is that a hypothetical threat to "withdraw" content (based around the idea that because that specific word isn't utilized in the license itself) is exceptionally dubious for its lack of legal sophistication, and yet its accompanying uncertainty about that and the prospect of potentially going bankrupt in an effort to try and prove it would still be sufficient to scare off at least some of the third-party community (even if some of them think that Microsoft will ride in on a white horse to save them).

To use an example in another domain, there's a dude named Kevin MacLeod who runs a site called incompetech – Music and also Graph Paper, where he among other things has a whole lot of royalty-free music available and released under Creative Commons. There are a lot of people who use that music for background in Youtube videos and in other places where some music is needed. Should Kevin decide to "withdraw" certain works, all those videos would suddenly become infringing, and that would mean the license would be pointless.

No, they would not "suddenly become infringing," because the hypothetical posited granted that existing uses of a withdrawn work are still valid; it's only things which utilize that work after the announced date of withdrawal that would be held to be infringing. There's no retroactive infringement in that scenario.

(As an aside, the website also has a pretty neat graph paper generator you can make all sorts of stuff with.)

Cool.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
@mamba and @Alzrius

You are, both of you, engaged in the internet equivalent of blowing raspberries at each other in public. Right now, you both look like peevish children nobody should listen to.

Please do not act surprised or put out if anyone dismisses your thoughts after an exchange like that - going forward, both of you should be prepared to handle folks disagreeing with you with more grace.