Board Thread:Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-6032121-20191015225741

Amorkuz wrote: It has been stated by the OP, "A commercial licence is definitely involved from the evidence that has been presented." Unfortunately, I see no evidence to support the existence of commercial license. Ah, so it's Rule 2 you're worried about? Hm. Well, several of the DWU authors said to have contributed these licenses to the short stories maintain fairly approachable online activities (Nate Bumber, for one, as we well know; Andrew Hickey has a frequently-updated blog; etc.).

It would be a trivial matter to get some of these people to confirm (on other platforms than Tardis, don't worry) that the licenses they gave were commercial ones. Would that suffice, or would we really need to go through all the relevant authors? I think three or so ought to be enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Wylder can be trusted when he says he obtained a license from X.

I personally know of exactly one place where it is explicitly claimed that a commercial license exists. And this claim is made by James Wylder, on his website.

On the Arcbeatle Press website. It is one thing that Arcbeatle Press may not be a "publisher" by some legal definitions, but you cannot treat it and James Wylder as interchangeable. Whatever it is, Arcbeatle Press is a business of some sort. It employs people and stuff.

Also, not strictly an explicit mention of a commercial license, but the fact that Obverse's Facebook account gave the story promotion as "Faction Paradox crossover fiction" ought also to count for something regarding whether various FP elements were indeed licensed.