Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9631908" data-attributes="member: 8461">Yes, it is.Incorrect. You seem to be ignoring that I specifically posited a situation whereby WotC would be &quot;withdrawing&quot; their own content, i.e. the 5.1 SRD, not revoking the entirety of the CC (since, as noted, the entire idea in that hypothetical is them purporting that the word &quot;withdraw&quot; isn't mentioned in the license, and so isn't prohibited, meaning that the license is otherwise valid). Hence, there'd be no standing for other companies which do not use the 5.1 SRD to get involved, beyond potentially submitting amicus briefs (though I suppose they could bankroll someone who does have such standing).You've also conveniently overlooked how that was an example of a dubious action on WotC's part, akin to the dubious reasoning they gave for supposedly being able to revoke the OGL. Expressing skepticism means that you're agreeing with my premise.Which makes it rather odd that you don't seem to realize that. Given that you can't seem to get the basic facts of your argument straight, I'm not sure why you think anyone here should put any faith in your interpretation of how that would go.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 9631908, member: 8461"] Yes, it is. Incorrect. You seem to be ignoring that I specifically posited a situation whereby WotC would be "withdrawing" their own content, i.e. the 5.1 SRD, not revoking the entirety of the CC (since, as noted, the entire idea in that hypothetical is them purporting that the word "withdraw" isn't mentioned in the license, and so isn't prohibited, meaning that the license is otherwise valid). Hence, there'd be no standing for other companies which do not use the 5.1 SRD to get involved, beyond potentially submitting amicus briefs (though I suppose they could bankroll someone who does have such standing). You've also conveniently overlooked how that was an example of a dubious action on WotC's part, akin to the dubious reasoning they gave for supposedly being able to revoke the OGL. Expressing skepticism means that you're agreeing with my premise. Which makes it rather odd that you don't seem to realize that. Given that you can't seem to get the basic facts of your argument straight, I'm not sure why you think anyone here should put any faith in your interpretation of how that would go. [/QUOTE]

Verification