Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
1.1/Terms Signature Leak, it was a draft?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 8933411" data-attributes="member: 6680772"><p>Let me see if I can bridge the disconnect.</p><p></p><p>OGL 1.1 was indisputably a draft. It was never published, never put into effect, never executed. Linda Codega even called it a draft. I also agree with you 1000% that contract offers are sent with both drafts of the contract (in this case, the term sheets) subject to negotiation and drafts of related material (in this case OGL 1.1) subject to change. Kyle Brink's statements on this matter also match up with my personal experience, and I do not believe he was being disingenuous.</p><p></p><p>There is also the timeline: the draft said that OGL 1.1 would take effect on January 13, 2023, and Linda Codega's internal sources stated that it was planned to be announced on January 4. No announcement ever came, and Codega's article exposing the leak draft was published on January 5. From that we can assume that the draft was still being changed at the time of the leak.</p><p></p><p>What people are taking issue with was the statement in the Smug Apology that, "Our plan was <em>always</em> to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that." The implication (and it's not particularly implicit) is that WotC was intending on getting wider community input before finalizing their update of the OGL. But if term sheets were sent with 1.1 attached, that indicates that the conditions of 1.1 were finalized <em>enough</em> internally for Wizards to attempt to make alternative deals with certain 3PP based on them.</p><p></p><p>Thus, had enough 3PPs signed new deals with WotC, it is highly unlikely that WotC would have removed the royalties conditions based on public outcry--er, "input." If Kobold Press signs an individual license deal for 10% royalties, against an ostensible 25% royalty in the new OGL, what happens if WotC then goes, "Oh, the community doesn't like the royalties, so we'll remove them from the OGL"?</p><p></p><p>It suggests some level of duplicity. Either WotC misrepresented themselves to the 3PPs they sent term sheets to, or they were misrepresenting themselves to the public in the Smug Apology.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I think that they took their shot at getting 3PP buy-in under NDA prior to public release, but by the time of the leak had faced that they were not going to get it and were already making revisions. I do not think they did anything especially unethical by attempting that strategy. The Smug Apology's tone and representations were problematic, but that has already been repeatedly repudiated by Kyle Brink, so I'm satisfied as far as that goes.</p><p></p><p>Edit:</p><p></p><p>Based on my reading of Codega's article covering the term sheets, as well as Kyle Brink's later statements, I do not believe there was "a contract." Each 3PP would have likely been sent a different version roughly similar but customized for each partner. The content of the term sheets <em>certainly</em> fall under the NDA, and so it's unlikely we'll ever get a primary source. Nor could Codega directly quote from the term sheet without risking exposing the party that leaked it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 8933411, member: 6680772"] Let me see if I can bridge the disconnect. OGL 1.1 was indisputably a draft. It was never published, never put into effect, never executed. Linda Codega even called it a draft. I also agree with you 1000% that contract offers are sent with both drafts of the contract (in this case, the term sheets) subject to negotiation and drafts of related material (in this case OGL 1.1) subject to change. Kyle Brink's statements on this matter also match up with my personal experience, and I do not believe he was being disingenuous. There is also the timeline: the draft said that OGL 1.1 would take effect on January 13, 2023, and Linda Codega's internal sources stated that it was planned to be announced on January 4. No announcement ever came, and Codega's article exposing the leak draft was published on January 5. From that we can assume that the draft was still being changed at the time of the leak. What people are taking issue with was the statement in the Smug Apology that, "Our plan was [I]always[/I] to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that." The implication (and it's not particularly implicit) is that WotC was intending on getting wider community input before finalizing their update of the OGL. But if term sheets were sent with 1.1 attached, that indicates that the conditions of 1.1 were finalized [I]enough[/I] internally for Wizards to attempt to make alternative deals with certain 3PP based on them. Thus, had enough 3PPs signed new deals with WotC, it is highly unlikely that WotC would have removed the royalties conditions based on public outcry--er, "input." If Kobold Press signs an individual license deal for 10% royalties, against an ostensible 25% royalty in the new OGL, what happens if WotC then goes, "Oh, the community doesn't like the royalties, so we'll remove them from the OGL"? It suggests some level of duplicity. Either WotC misrepresented themselves to the 3PPs they sent term sheets to, or they were misrepresenting themselves to the public in the Smug Apology. Personally, I think that they took their shot at getting 3PP buy-in under NDA prior to public release, but by the time of the leak had faced that they were not going to get it and were already making revisions. I do not think they did anything especially unethical by attempting that strategy. The Smug Apology's tone and representations were problematic, but that has already been repeatedly repudiated by Kyle Brink, so I'm satisfied as far as that goes. Edit: Based on my reading of Codega's article covering the term sheets, as well as Kyle Brink's later statements, I do not believe there was "a contract." Each 3PP would have likely been sent a different version roughly similar but customized for each partner. The content of the term sheets [I]certainly[/I] fall under the NDA, and so it's unlikely we'll ever get a primary source. Nor could Codega directly quote from the term sheet without risking exposing the party that leaked it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
1.1/Terms Signature Leak, it was a draft?
Top