Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 9632382" data-attributes="member: 8461">It does not directly affect them if content they don't use under the CC license is withdrawn.Incorrect. You see it as being equivalent to that, but it's already been proven that's not the case, even if you feel otherwise.&quot;As good as&quot; is not the same thing as &quot;actually being.&quot; You can say that &quot;A is as good as B,&quot; but that does not mean that &quot;A is B.&quot; Hence the aforementioned &quot;already been proven.&quot;Except it has been. When someone says that something is &quot;as good as&quot; something else, that implicitly acknowledges that it's not actually that other thing.On the contrary, the people arguing otherwise are not accepting the reality of the situation, since they're arguing that if something is &quot;as good as&quot; another thing, then it must actually be that other thing, which is self-evidently not the case. Otherwise there wouldn't be a distinction to be made between &quot;as good as&quot; and &quot;actually being.&quot;It's still &quot;enforceable&quot; per se, it's just that it has no provision explicitly denying that content can be &quot;withdrawn.&quot;Which is what we all said about WotC trying to revoke the OGL before they went and tried to revoke the OGL.But as I said before, that's not the point. The point is that WotC's threat about revoking the OGL was always legally dubious, as dubious as someone claiming they can &quot;withdraw&quot; content from the CC; and yet that dubious claim (which never resulted in any legal filings) was still enough to shake the entire industry; hence why any ideas that the CC is somehow a better/safer license because of its legal specifics are similarly misplaced, because those specifics don't matter any more than they did for the OGL in the face of a bogus threat when it comes from a huge corporation.They didn't have to file a lawsuit over &quot;revoking&quot; the OGL to have a serious impact on the industry, is my point. There's no reason that's any less true for the CC.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 9632382, member: 8461"] It does not [B]directly [/B]affect them if content they don't use under the CC license is withdrawn. Incorrect. You see it as being equivalent to that, but it's already been proven that's not the case, even if you feel otherwise. "As good as" is not the same thing as "actually being." You can say that "A is as good as B," but that does not mean that "A is B." Hence the aforementioned "already been proven." Except it has been. When someone says that something is "as good as" something else, that implicitly acknowledges that it's not [B]actually[/B] that other thing. On the contrary, the people arguing otherwise are not accepting the reality of the situation, since they're arguing that if something is "as good as" another thing, then it must actually [B]be[/B] that other thing, which is self-evidently not the case. Otherwise there wouldn't be a distinction to be made between "as good as" and "actually being." It's still "enforceable" per se, it's just that it has no provision explicitly denying that content can be "withdrawn." Which is what we all said about WotC trying to revoke the OGL before they went and tried to revoke the OGL. But as I said before, that's not the point. The point is that WotC's threat about revoking the OGL was always legally dubious, as dubious as someone claiming they can "withdraw" content from the CC; and yet that dubious claim (which never resulted in any legal filings) was still enough to shake the entire industry; hence why any ideas that the CC is somehow a better/safer license because of its legal specifics are similarly misplaced, because those specifics don't matter any more than they did for the OGL in the face of a bogus threat when it comes from a huge corporation. They didn't have to file a lawsuit over "revoking" the OGL to have a serious impact on the industry, is my point. There's no reason that's any less true for the CC. [/QUOTE]

Verification