1.1/Terms Signature Leak, it was a draft?

[dave2008]

EDIT: Thanks to @Enrahim2 for providing the link with the gun (if not completely smoking): Cancelled D&D Beyond Subscriptions Forced Hasbro's Hand

In the article Gizmodo claims to have a primary document of the OGL 1.1 and spoken with a lawyer who reviewed the term sheet given to 3PP who where part of the NDA. It appears from this article that the term sheets (scroll down to the section called "Term Sheets" in the article) did indeed include language that implied the terms were negotiable. That would make the terms and by correlation the OGL 1.1 a draft. It is not a smoking gun, and strong arm tactics could have been used, but it does lend support to Kyle Brinks recent interviews. Here is the relevant quote from the article:

"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."

PS - I realize the lawyer had an impression they were not, but it sounds like the actual document said they were. That is a draft IMO.

If anyone has better info, please let me know!

EDIT 2: @Ruin Explorer made a good point. If they wanted it to be a draft, they could easily note it as such. So though it may have technically been a draft and negotiable, it was not clear to those it was presented to and there is little to no excuse for that. Of course maybe that was clear and we just haven't seen it - but that seems unlikely. It seems likely that those who wrote the term sheet & OGL 1.1 wanted people to adopt it.

---

Original Post:

Does anyone have a link to leak of the OGL 1.1 that actually includes the signature request / language? I have seen several links of the text, and I have heard that it asked to be signed by a specific date; however, I have never actually seen that portion of the document. I would like to verify these claims if I can. I am starting to loose some faith in the reporting of the leaks and would to know if things are a misunderstanding or lies and if they are lies, by whom?

Anyway, just looking for some clarity if anyone has it. Thank you!

EDIT: Per @Ruin Explorer prompting I will try to be more clear about what I want and why. First a little background;

In reading peoples response to these interviews I see a lot of people make comments on the paraphrased bits in a summary as opposed to the actual video interview. That has created, IMO, a lot of false impressions and understands of what was actually said. That got me think about the original leaks.

So what I want, if it is out there, is the actual language of the OGL 1.1 document where it asks for the signature. I would also love to see the explanation document it was sent with (email or whatever) if there was one. I want to see the original language so I can interpret it for myself. The last few days have taught me not to rely on someone else's interpretation with regard to this issue.

Do I expect this - not really. I was just wandering if it existed out there and I missed it. I've lost a little faith in people to able to rationally interpret these things.

 

[Jer]

I was going to respond to this when you asked about it the other day. The signature thing confuses me - the OGL doesn't need a signature. I assumed where folks were talking about signatures it was about the "sweetheart deal" that gave creators better terms than the new OGL would have. Did that document ever leak?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was going to respond to this when you asked about it the other day. The signature thing confuses me - the OGL doesn't need a signature. I assumed where folks were talking about signatures it was about the "sweetheart deal" that gave creators better terms than the new OGL would have. Did that document ever leak?

Not publicly that I'm aware of.

It was shown to some people, but I suspect that to see it, you had to sign and NDA, and thus if it got leaked generally, someone would be able to work out who violated the NDA, and whilst I think it's unlikely WotC would enforce on that, it's not impossible, and WotC might otherwise be hostile to them even if it didn't get to a lawsuit.

So I think it's a little bit unreasonable to expect to see this, myself.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

WotC is certainly not the only actor in this drama who has an agenda.

 

[Enrahim2]

My impression was that it was the alternative arrangements that came with the posibility of signing. That is: sign here, and you get a license to use our material with only 15% royalties of what you earn over 750k and we will also promote some of your works on d&d beyond.

Such a contract would not be provided as a publicly accessible link.

 

[dave2008]

Not publicly that I'm aware of.

It was shown to some people, but I suspect that to see it, you had to sign and NDA, and thus if it got leaked generally, someone would be able to work out who violated the NDA, and whilst I think it's unlikely WotC would enforce on that, it's not impossible, and WotC might otherwise be hostile to them even if it didn't get to a lawsuit.

So I think it's a little bit unreasonable to expect to see this, myself.

But we did see parts of the leaked documents, we just haven't seen the supposed part that required people to sign the dotted line so to speak. That is what is starting to feel odd to me.

 

[dave2008]

My impression was that it was the alternative arrangements that came with the posibility of signing. That is: sign here, and you get a license to use our material with only 15% royalties of what you earn over 750k and we will also promote some of your works on d&d beyond.

Such a contract would not be provided as a publicly accessible link.

That could be and it makes some sense; however, that is not how it is be construed by a lot of people talking about it.

I guess I would like the smoking gun, that I may never get.

 

[dave2008]

I was going to respond to this when you asked about it the other day. The signature thing confuses me - the OGL doesn't need a signature. I assumed where folks were talking about signatures it was about the "sweetheart deal" that gave creators better terms than the new OGL would have. Did that document ever leak?

That is just it - as far as I know the only thing that was ever leaked was some language of some document. I don't know what one. However, the implication I have seen, by many, is that everything that was sent out required those who got it to sign by a certain date.

I'm just looking for some verifiable clarity - that I may never get.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But we did see parts of the leaked documents, we just haven't seen the supposed part that required people to sign the dotted line so to speak. That is what is starting to feel odd to me.

I mean, that seems irrational to me. The obvious reason is that it required an NDA to see it, and it's a very different thing to violate an NDA to show a journalist or the like and to violate and NDA and just chuck something on the internet. I'm not sure what you're actually even concerned about here. Because you won't specify, it's equally possible the misunderstanding is on your end.

 

[bedir than]

Brink's statement that no signature was asked for on OGL 1.1 is causing some people to call him a liar.

But the full statement he made regarding it explains how people would be confused and say that there was a signature required (because the NDA and specific licenses had them) make sense.

What it seems that @dave2008 is after is the veracity of those calling Brink a liar. People such as DnD Shorts claimed that OGL 1.1 had a signature required. But never showed that to be true. It's another, at best, unverifiable claim, and at worst another outright lie.

 

[Enrahim2]

That could be and it makes some sense; however, that is not how it is be construed by a lot of people talking about it.

I guess I would like the smoking gun, that I may never get.

I think the first short phrasing of the situation was that ogl1.1 "came with enforceable contracts". In the larger context where this was first coined, it was clear that these contacts refered to the "sweetheart deals". But that catchphrase do not clarify that, so it seem people have construed the contract in question to be the ogl itself.

Moreover I don't think I have seen any primary sources refering to a signature field either, so I suspect that is also a level of someone down the information chain expanding based on how they imagine an "enforceable contract" to look like.

 

[Jer]

People such as DnD Shorts claimed that OGL 1.1 had a signature required.

Did he actually claim that? Or are people saying that he claimed that?

Because that literally does not make sense. The OGL is not a license you have to sign to agree to, it's a license you accept just by agreeing to its terms.

I suspect people really are conflating the OGL 1.1 preview that was being shopped around with the "better terms" contract that was apparently going around with it. Of course a "sweetheart deal" only being offered to some would require a signature - it's not the kind of open agreement that the OGL is.

 

[dave2008]

I mean, that seems irrational to me. The obvious reason is that it required an NDA to see it, and it's a very different thing to violate an NDA to show a journalist or the like and to violate and NDA and just chuck something on the internet.

But we have seen portions of the leaked document on line. That has already happened - not just reports of what is in it. But the actual text. So why not that part of the text? There are many plausible reasons, but I was simply wondering if it had been posted, like some of the document has already been.

I'm not sure what you're actually even concerned about here. Because you won't specify, it's equally possible the misunderstanding is on your end.

I was not trying to be obtuse. I will try to be more specific here, then update the OP. First a little background;

In reading peoples response to these interviews I see a lot of people make comments on the paraphrased bits in a summary as opposed to the actual video interview. That has created, IMO, a lot of false impressions and understands of what was actually said. That got me think about the original leaks.

So what I want, if it is out there, is the actual language of the OGL 1.1 document where it asks for the signature. I would also love to see the explanation document it was sent with (email or whatever) if there was one. I want to see the original language so I can interpret it for myself. The last few days have taught me not to rely on someone else's interpretation with regard to this issue.

Do I expect this - not really. I was just wandering if it existed out there and I missed it. I've lost a little faith in people to able to rationally interpret these things.

 

[dave2008]

Did he actually claim that? Or are people saying that he claimed that?

Because that literally does not make sense. The OGL is not a license you have to sign to agree to, it's a license you accept just by agreeing to its terms.

I suspect people really are conflating the OGL 1.1 preview that was being shopped around with the "better terms" contract that was apparently going around with it. Of course a "sweetheart deal" only being offered to some would require a signature - it's not the kind of open agreement that the OGL is.

I don't remember what DnD Shorts claimed, but many did make that claim. Also, IIRC, Shorts mad a mess of the leaks initially because he repeatedly misunderstood what the OGL vs SRD are. So I wouldn't be surprised if he did make the claim based on a misunderstanding of what he was told.

 

[Enrahim2]

I don't remember what DnD Shorts claimed, but many did make that claim. Also, IIRC, Shorts mad a mess of the leaks initially because he repeatedly misunderstood what the OGL vs SRD are. So I wouldn't be surprised if he did make the claim based on a misunderstanding of what he was told.

The only claim of this sorts i am aware of dnd shorts making is 3 minutes into this video: The exact phrasing is that ogl1.1 "was sent out to creators with a contract for them to sign". It is not clear from this video in isolation that he is refering to the separate improved deals, and hence if this video was the first time someone heard about this issue they could be forgiven to misconstrue that the contracts in question was the ogl1.1 itself. It was not. It however heavily indicate 1.1 was not meant to change as there were other clearly signable contracts based on the ogl1.1 premise.

 

[Alzrius]

Personally, I'm still searching for the OGL v2.0 that was briefly discussed (which was after the v1.1 leaks, but before the v1.2 draft). From what I can tell, a few copies of an FAQ for it were sent to a few people in the community, but that was it; even that FAQ doesn't seem to be available to download anywhere.

 

[Enrahim2]

Personally, I'm still searching for the OGL v2.0 that was briefly discussed (which was after the v1.1 leaks, but before the v1.2 draft). From what I can tell, a few copies of an FAQ for it were sent to a few people in the community, but that was it; even that FAQ doesn't seem to be available to download anywhere.

Only an internal draft faq was leaked, and from Kyle's descriptions it was likely refering to a work in progress name for the version that got released as 1.2.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So what I want, if it is out there, is the actual language of the OGL 1.1 document where it asks for the signature.

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

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.

I would also love to see the explanation document it was sent with (email or whatever) if there was one. I want to see the original language so I can interpret it for myself. The last few days have taught me not to rely on someone else's interpretation with regard to this issue.

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.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Only an internal draft faq was leaked, and from Kyle's descriptions it was likely refering to a work in progress name for the version that got released as 1.2.

Yup. I'd still be a lot of fun to see the 2.0 version through - for the FAQ to exist, there must have been a nearly-complete or even complete 2.0 at one point, before it got abandoned. But we are wishing to see corporate mysteries which we only glimpsed because of the daring of certain individuals (which might include Kyle for all we know, though probably not).

 

[Enrahim2]

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