Drafts do not come with contracts attached?

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not sure what the terms being open to negotiation is meant to prove though. The underlying point is that Wizards attempted to coerce publishers into new licensing agreements based on the threat that the OGL would be rescinded and replaced with something similar to 1.1. Even if the details of the new agreements were open to negotiation, Wizards clearly intended to revoke the OGL and was actively using the threat of this unethical (and likely unlawful) action as a means of gaining leverage over publishers.

¯\(ツ)/¯

Like I wrote, I don't understand why people are debating this - after all, it's in the past now. Nevertheless, it's always good to try and be factually correct.

PS- Contract disputes are not unlawful. As for ethical, who knows? I'm sure Milton Friedman might have a different view than you and I do.

 

[darjr]

Here is the crux to me.

People see the word “draft” and think “oh, WotC didn’t mean it” when it seems more and more clear, regardless if WotC considered them drafts, they absolutely did mean it.

I think WotC is being as clear as they can be but at the same time not making it clear that they did mean to kill the OGL.

So the idea that these contracts were a draft or not is besides the point and is a distraction.

 

[Scribe]

People see the word “draft” and think “oh, WotC didn’t mean it” when it seems more and more clear, regardless if WotC considered them drafts, they absolutely did mean it.

There is also the legal-ese, contractual definition of 'draft' and what it means within any given company.

I'm not defending Wizbro, but it could be just how they frame language, or it could be obfuscation.

 

[Maxperson]

As @Ruin Explorer has said, contracts are drafts until the are not. So, the OGL 1.1 and the Term Sheet definitely could have been a draft and technically is a draft until signed by both parties. However, what we don't know is how the Term Sheet was proposed to the 3PP under NDA. When know one lawyer who reviewed the Term Sheet (see link above) admitted it was negotiable, but that he had the "impression" there was not much room for negotiation. It seems WotC should have been, at the very least, more clear that the term sheet & OGL were drafts, it that was the intent.

Anyway, I just wanted to clear up that drafts can have contracts and contracts can be drafts.

Sure, but that's both right and wrong in the context of what people are talking about with WotC.

Technically(and technically is the best kind of correct), you guys are correct that a contract is a draft until it is signed by everyone. However, that's not what people are talking about here.

There are two different kinds of drafts when it comes to contracts. There are the internal drafts where the WotC lawyers wrote the contract, reviewed it, made revisions, reviewed them again, perhaps sent them to someone else in the firm for review and further revision, and so on. Then they had the final version of what WotC wanted to see happen. That's what was sent to the 3PP. So while it wasn't a final signed contract, all the bad stuff in it is what WotC finalized internally and tried to make happen. It's not really relevant to the issue that there was the potential for the 3pp to try and negotiate some terms(if WotC was open to any negotiation at all).

Edit: When WotC came out and was like, "But it was only a draft!" they were being deceptive via that technicality. They were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't. It was a contract that they wanted to happen as written.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Here is the crux to me.

People see the word “draft” and think “oh, WotC didn’t mean it” when it seems more and more clear, regardless if WotC considered them drafts, they absolutely did mean it.

I think WotC is being as clear as they can be but at the same time not making it clear that they did mean to kill the OGL.

So the idea that these contracts were a draft or not is besides the point and is a distraction.

I think it is relevant. Because people say WotC lied about it being a draft. Which seems factually wrong, based on what we actually heard.

Did they want this draft to become an actual license? Yes. Did they started with unacceptable terms to meet in the middle? Probably also yes.
Was it "ethical" to apply that much pressure? No. It was trying to leverate their market position.

 

[Scribe]

I think it is relevant. Because people say WotC lied about it being a draft. Which seems factually wrong, based on what we actually heard.

Did they want this draft to become an actual license? Yes. Did they started with unacceptable terms to meet in the middle? Probably also yes.
Was it "ethical" to apply that much pressure? No. It was trying to leverate their market position.

Right, so they are still trash bags, but technically...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Right, so they are still trash bags, but technically...

No. That misinterprets me. I think it is important to state facts, even if they don't fit into your narrative.
If you accuse someone of lying, prove it or bugger off.

 

[Scribe]

No. That misinterprets me. I think it is important to state facts, even if they don't fit into your narrative.
If you accuse someone of lying, prove it or bugger off.

My narrative maintains, they are scummy. Just because its a draft, doesnt mean it wasnt final to them at the time. Its just many (most?) people associate draft with 'not final'.

I'm not saying its your position, but its certainly mine that they are essentially not being transparent, or fully honest.

I did this with my son once. Held up both hands, one with 2 fingers, one with 3 held up.

The 'correct' answer to how many fingers I'm holding up, is 2, 3 and 5.

Technically, all are correct, with the given amount of detail. Many (most?) would answer 5, and be correct as to the INTENT of the question.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My narrative maintains, they are scummy. Just because its a draft, doesnt mean it wasnt final to them at the time. Its just many (most?) people associate draft with 'not final'.

I'm not saying its your position, but its certainly mine that they are essentially not being transparent, or fully honest.

I did this with my son once. Held up both hands, one with 2 fingers, one with 3 held up.

The 'correct' answer to how many fingers I'm holding up, is 2, 3 and 5.

Technically, all are correct, with the given amount of detail. Many (most?) would answer 5, and be correct as to the INTENT of the question.

As I said: it is not about being technical correct. It is about telling the truth.
If we hold WotC to accountable to their word, we should not lie.

 

[Scribe]

As I said: it is not about being technical correct. It is about telling the truth.
If we hold WotC to accountable to their word, we should not lie.

Sure man. I dont trust them, and them dancing around words like 'draft' in this way does not engender trust either. I know what it is, and I get it, but I unfortunately 'get' a lot of what they are saying, as its all stuff I've seen before.