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.