Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="glass" data-source="post: 8919601" data-attributes="member: 12251">It's CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is no sharealike requirement.If not actually having a case does not absolutely prevent lawfare under OGL then it does not prevent it under the CC either. Although it does probably make it rather less likely.We cannot. To quote Maya Angelou once again, "When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time."You cannot live in the modern world without trusting multiple corporations every day. The trick is that trust should never be absolute, and should be reassessed when a company does something as monumentally monstrous as what WotC attempted to do.That was the stated aim, but two playtest packets in we have only seen a tiny subset of the full proposed game and they have already introduced multiple significant incompatibilities."Hate" may not quite be the word, but "has contempt for" certainly fits. EDIT: Not everyone who works for WotC of course, but a non-trivial portion of their senior management.It wouldn't hurt, but they already did that and it did not prevent the recent shenanigans (although it may be why the partially backed down rather than powering through).You get that CC-BY has no sharealike requirement at all, right? So you indignation against people wanting partial but not total downstream licensing seems rather misplaced.They could, but why would they. With all the people declaring victory and patting themselves and WotC on the back, the pressure for further concessions has evaporated.I don't get why both you and [USER=2525]@Mistwell[/USER] stated that there is nothing they can do about it, and then immediately list the thing they can do about it. They could release a 1.0b which is identical to 1.0a except that it includes the word "irrevocable" in a couple of prominent places and gives a sensible definition for "authorised", and then release their SRDs under it. Section 9 would pretty-much take care of the rest. EDIT: Nothing is completely proof against bad actors, but that applies to the CC too. Nonetheless, everything you close off or clarify makes misbehaviour less likely.No, they did not. They said they are not deauthorising it right now. They have not promised that they will never try again in the future, nor admitted that they lack the power to do so.</blockquote>

Verification