1.1/Terms Signature Leak, it was a draft?

[dave2008]

It's not in the OGL 1.1, no-one ever said it was (or certainly not any journo or the like).

I have not heard any journalist take on this - I was just talking about tubers and people on these forums. And yes, many said it did (like just yesterday even).

This has been explained multiple times now. It was in an additional document with 1.1 - the terms sheet.
So this is a good example of a misunderstanding on your part, and you might want to think on that a bit before accusing others of misleading you. People are quite capable of misleading themselves.

Yes, I see were the confusion started most likely. Thanks to @Enrahim2 's post above. I made the mistake of not watching the video an going off what other people said. The exact behavior I am trying to correct now. It was less of a misunderstanding on my part and more of me reacting to incorrect paraphrasing. Again, I mistake I would like to correct.

Again, I am not asking for the OGL with the signature - but the document, whatever it is, that asked for signatures. I will clarify the OP again.

Sure, and that would be fun to see - and one day it might leak - but I'm confident in saying that because it was NDA'd and not hugely relevant, it hasn't. Further you seeing it yourself does not guarantee you will understand it very well. With no insult intended, you might well misunderstand it. Someone like @Snarf Zagyg or one of our other lawyers would be far more likely to have a valid understanding that you could achieve yourself.

Absolutely. But I have a better chance if a read it myself and then possibly with corroboration by a legal expert to clarify my understanding is correct.

EDIT - Additionally I'd note Kyle has hedged on this. He said both that draft documents can contain signature blocks and so on (technically correct, the best kind of correct), but he also did appear to admit that at least one party might have indeed signed this supposedly "draft" document, which destroys the idea that it was actually a draft in any meaningful sense of the word. He's been vague and that's his prerogative, of course.

Unless I misheard he said something like he could understand how someone could think a signature was required, but I don't think he said anyone signed it.

 

[Jer]

Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hand

Swift consumer action prompted Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast to to scrap licensing updates. The players aren't done yet.

gizmodo.com

This was exactly the story I was thinking of, I just couldn't remember who published it. Should have remembered it was Linda Codega's.

 

[dave2008]

I believe this is the most complete public primary source we have regarding the details surrounding the signable things comming with the ogl1.1 draft. Scroll to "term sheet". This was not the first source I am aware of mentioning that there were contract attached, but I believe it is the only one that expand on any details.

Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hand

Swift consumer action prompted Dungeons & Dragons publisher Wizards of the Coast to to scrap licensing updates. The players aren't done yet.

gizmodo.com

Thank you for the link, you have been very help. However, I didn't find any primary source in that article - only that they had one.

I did find this interesting:

"It was expected that third parties would sign these Term Sheets. Noah Downs, a lawyer in the table-top RPG space who was consulted on the conditions of one of these contracts, stated that even though the sheets included language suggesting negotiation was possible,* he got the impression there wasn’t much room for change."

The article assumes these where final documents, yet claims they included language suggesting the document was negotiable. If it is negotiable, it is a draft. I realize that the lawyer didn't feel that way - but he says the language is there.

So it seems that one of the few outlets to say the have a primary source and talked to someone "in the room," that the contracts where negotiable and thus drafts.

* @Ruin Explorer, I guess this is the document / language I would like to see. I know I probably never will - but it would be nice!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Unless I misheard he said something like he could understand how someone could think a signature was required, but I don't think he said anyone signed it.

I agree he didn't say anyone had, but the circumspect way he approached the issue to me was suggestive that someone might have, and even saying "Oh I can see how people thought they needed to sign it!" is quite a wild thing if it's supposed to be merely for feedback. I'm trying to figure out how one would even possibly mess that up that bad? I've sent out dumb emails requiring clarification before but good god nothing even 1/10th that confusing! I honestly would love to see the whole thing - like the email and its attachments/links, because I'm betting it's pretty threatening.

He also notes that were they did get feedback, they basically just said "Ok thanks 4 feedback" rather than saying "Okay we're taking this on board and we understand your issues". This is something close to my heart because I've been on both sides of it in my work. It is very important to acknowledge the actual concerns of stakeholders, even if you're ultimately going to override them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If it is negotiable, it is a draft.

No.

From a legal perspective, anyway. It just means that you might make another version. That is not at all the same thing as being a draft.

I've seen this countless times at work. We send out what is intended to be a final document to be signed, and there's not intended to be further negotiation, and we certainly don't consider it a "draft", but then the other side gets back as it like "Nah mate, we need you to change this!" and negotiation happens, even though it was intended to be final.

So I'd say from certainly from the perspective of a law firm, that sometimes "final" documents do get negotiated. Frequently even.

Sometimes things are even clearer - until you get to a certain point, it may be that every document has a bigass watermark with "DRAFT" on it, for example. That's a very good way to eliminate any misunderstanding. But that also doesn't mean that magically the moment that watermark disappears, all negotiation is over forever.

 

[dave2008]

No.

From a legal perspective, anyway. It just means that you might make another version. That is not at all the same thing as being a draft.

I've seen this countless times at work. We send out what is intended to be a final document to be signed, and there's not intended to be further negotiation, and we certainly don't consider it a "draft", but then the other side gets back as it like "Nah mate, we need you to change this!" and negotiation happens, even though it was intended to be final.

So I'd say from certainly from the perspective of a law firm, that sometimes "final" documents do get negotiated. Frequently even.

Sometimes things are even clearer - until you get to a certain point, it may be that every document has a bigass watermark with "DRAFT" on it, for example. That's a very good way to eliminate any misunderstanding. But that also doesn't mean that magically the moment that watermark disappears, all negotiation is over forever.

I have been in the same situation. I have sent out several "drafts" that is only a draft because I said so in the email. I don't usually sign those until I don't receive comment. I have also sent out final documents that needed to be revised. Trust me, I understand this.

However, the lawyer Gizmodo spoke to claimed the language of the term sheet itself suggested negotiation was possible. I'm not a lawyer, but why would you put that in there if you were not offering negotiation?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

However, the lawyer Gizmodo spoke to claimed the language of the term sheet itself suggested negotiation was possible. I'm not a lawyer, but why would you put that in there if you were not offering negotiation?

Without seeing the specific language it's hard to say, I would say. The lawyer might merely be referring to the "we might cut you a better deal if you contact us directly" language (which is present in the OGL 1.1 IIRC and may well have been reflected in the term sheet). It certainly doesn't imply it's a draft. The way you imply it's a draft is you say "This is just a draft" like you have, or stick a bigass DRAFT watermark on it. You don't like, just expect them to intuit that it's a draft because you have some language re negotiation. Indeed, having language re: negotiation potentially suggests that it's not really a draft, because it sort of presupposes they want to negotiate with you, and why would they?

 

[Enrahim2]

I have been in the same situation. I have sent out several "drafts" that is only a draft because I said so in the email. I don't usually sign those until I don't receive comment. I have also sent out final documents that needed to be revised. Trust me, I understand this.

However, the lawyer Gizmodo spoke to claimed the language of the term sheet itself suggested negotiation was possible. I'm not a lawyer, but why would you put that in there if you were not offering negotiation?

It was a term sheet. I would guess it contained some boxes with prefilled numbers and lists of extra benefits. Just the fact there being more space in the boxes than what was filled out might be an indication that extras could be added. However I think the first sentence in your quoted paragraph is more telling: It was expected to be signed. That likely leaves very little wiggle room for the big picture.

 

[dave2008]

I agree he didn't say anyone had, but the circumspect way he approached the issue to me was suggestive that someone might have, and even saying "Oh I can see how people thought they needed to sign it!" is quite a wild thing if it's supposed to be merely for feedback. I'm trying to figure out how one would even possibly mess that up that bad? I've sent out dumb emails requiring clarification before but good god nothing even 1/10th that confusing! I honestly would love to see the whole thing - like the email and its attachments/links, because I'm betting it's pretty threatening.

I am beginning to think it was hardcopy handed to people in a meeting. No digital trail at all maybe? I believe Morus said he couldn't go because of the late notice and a conflicting schedule. So he didn't have a copy of the documents.

It also important to note that Kyle said he was not in those meetings. He knows they happened and who they were with, but he wasn't in them (he claims). If all of the above is true, his statement rings more true. Doesn't mean it is, and is not a good look even if it is.

EDIT: Morrus confirmed the meeting was virtual.

He also notes that were they did get feedback, they basically just said "Ok thanks 4 feedback" rather than saying "Okay we're taking this on board and we understand your issues". This is something close to my heart because I've been on both sides of it in my work. It is very important to acknowledge the actual concerns of stakeholders, even if you're ultimately going to override them.

Yep, that is a failure to communicate. One I have perpetrated myself. I honestly think that is why I sometimes seem to side with WotC a bit. I have made the very mistakes they talk about. I have waited to long to make something "perfect" before I get back to my clients. I have sent drafts that shouldn't have been sent (or to the wrong people). S%^t happens. It is hard for me to blame someone for making the very mistakes I have made. However, I am not a billion dollar corporation, they should do better.

 

[dave2008]

It was a term sheet. I would guess it contained some boxes with prefilled numbers and lists of extra benefits. Just the fact there being more space in the boxes than what was filled out might be an indication that extras could be added. However I think the first sentence in your quoted paragraph is more telling: It was expected to be signed. That likely leaves very little wiggle room for the big picture.

Except that it appears to me that was simply based on the lawyers "impression." I could be wrong. Regardless, I think @Ruin Explorer has it correct. If they wanted it to be a draft, it could easily be clearly marked as draft. Maybe it was, but we don't know that and based on how Kyle has talked about it - I don't think it was noted as such.