1.1/Terms Signature Leak, it was a draft?

ValamirCleaver

Ein Jäger aus Kurpfalz

OGL "2.0's" FAQ was leaked to a handful of creators yesterday. In it, they lie about 1.1 being a draft, and hide doubling down on bad choices with a couple partial concessions.

1.0a is the ONLY way forward. It doesn't matter what they give up in any of these "drafts".

FmW-MliWQAEcgv7.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
I appreciate you wanting to join the conversation, but this didn't add anything to our discussion. I am looking for primary sources about the term sheet offered to 3PP. The tweets you attached are 2nd or 3rd generation paraphrasing about a different document (the 2.0 FAQ). This doesn't provide any insight into the actual document in question and actually does exactly what I am trying to avoid (speculate as to the nature of the document in question).

Do you have an argument as to why the tweets you attached are relevant?
 


dave2008

Legend
A 3PP publicly commented in a way that is relevant to the subject of your thread.
This was a leak of the FAQ, which I think came from within WotC not a 3PP? I am a little unclear about the whole 2.0 issue actually as it came and went so quickly in the timeline of public information. Regardless, this is further from the subject of the thread - the Term Sheet. I am hoping to get closer, but I don't think anything closer has been posted. If I am wrong, that is the info I want.
Short of you convincing a 3PP to break an NDA your chances of accessing "primary sources about the term sheet offered to 3PP" are effectively nil.
Yes, that is why I quoted the text from the Gizmodo article where they spoke to a lawyer who had seen the primary text. I think that is the closest we will get. Personally I feel this exercise has ultimately gotten my nowhere. Oh well.
 


ValamirCleaver

Ein Jäger aus Kurpfalz
To me this seems to be in reference to 1.1 not 2.0 :

'Lies about 1.1 being a draft. Drafts do not come with contracts attached. Further, it was never called a draft in their meetings with creators: in the same meetings where they were supposed to feel safest, according to Wizards.'
 

dave2008

Legend
To me this seems to be in reference to 1.1 not 2.0 :

'Lies about 1.1 being a draft. Drafts do not come with contracts attached.
This is just not true. I have had this happen and so have other people on these forums. My company regularly sends out contract drafts and there is nothing to identify the contract as draft necessarily (it depends on who sends it as all PMs can write contracts in my firm). Even a standard AIA (American Institute of Architects) contract is often sent as a draft to modified as needed by the client. We then revise the contract or add to as needed. All of these contracts come with signature lines.

I don't know if I can legally share these documents, but I have easy access to them (and have written them myself). I think I will see if I can redact one and post it.
Further, it was never called a draft in their meetings with creators: in the same meetings where they were supposed to feel safest, according to Wizards.'
Do we know that? I assume that is the case, but the only first hand report I have seen (the lawyer in the Gizmodo article) stated the Term Sheet included language that implied the document as negotiable. However, he had the "impression there wasn’t much room for change."

Even if the implied room for change is small - it is still room for change and thus a draft.
 


Enrahim2

Adventurer
This is just not true. I have had this happen and so have other people on these forums. My company regularly sends out contract drafts and there is nothing to identify the contract as draft necessarily (it depends on who sends it as all PMs can write contracts in my firm). Even a standard AIA (American Institute of Architects) contract is often sent as a draft to modified as needed by the client. We then revise the contract or add to as needed. All of these contracts come with signature lines.
I think you miss the point. The question isn't about if the contract was negotiable. The issue is that it was formed so that it could have legal effect. As such the question isnt what would happen if those was sent back to request chamges, but rather what would have happened if they had actually signed?

The point here is that this was a genuine contract offer to several parties. That wizards actually extended this offer is what make people not accept it being described as a draft. Wether it was an ultimatum or not is a seperate consern, and I have not seen anyone claim that it was.
 

dave2008

Legend
Have you contacted The Griffon's Saddlebag in an attempt to acquire firsthand knowledge of such?
No, this post was my attempt at information gathering. I have already spent way to much time on this, I was hoping there was more primary evidence available that I was unaware of, but it doesn't appear to be the case.

However, since they commented that drafts do not have contracts I have to question them and/or there source a bit. Because as I explain here (with examples from my firm): Drafts do not come with contracts?; contracts absolutely are submitted as drafts.

That being said, if I feel the need to do more investigation I will reach out to them. But I must say, I don't have the same level of trust for them as I do Gizmodo.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top