> At least the SRD5 is now irrevocably in the creative commons.

They changed the underlying law of licenses that makes gratuitous licenses revocable at will independent of the content of the license? How?

As applied to open source licenses, that is a legal theory, not settled law, and there are many people, including lawyers who professionally deal with F/OSS, who disagree with you.

https://lwn.net/Articles/747563/

You've asserted something like this a few times on HN, and your responses are undetailed enough (or flavored with fake astonishment, like this one) that you seem to think it's obvious.

Isn't the requirement of attribution the consideration in cases like this? Which would make it not gratuitous? Here's open source lawyer and HN user 'DannyBee saying so, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14557737

IANAL, but from TFA:

> By simply publishing it, we place it under an irrevocable Creative Commons license.

I'd be very surprised if they still had their rights to revoke the license after explicitly saying otherwise.

Well, this whole thing started with them playing silly games to revoke an irrevocable license.

So... well, I'm not going to be buying anything new from WotC any time soon. I'd say anything from Hasbro, but that's such a big umbrella I'm not sure I could consistently figure out all the subsidiaries.