bedir than
Full Moon Storyteller
OGLChange_draft_draft2_draftCLO_final_FinalFinal_ReadtoSend_draftCEO_NoSendNow_ActuallyFinal
Drafts do not come with contracts attached?
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
It's not a lie to say that they sent out the contract with the terms that they wanted to be final.
Gammadoodler
Hero
.v2
UngeheuerLich
Legend
No. But I have seen calling them liars, because they say it was a draft. Which is wrong.
Gammadoodler
Hero
How would you describe their characterization of the status of the document from WotC's perspective?
Honest? And if not honest, then what?
Edit: Put another way..
If my wife accuses me of sleeping with another person and I deny it on the basis that technically no sleeping occured, is it fair to call me a 'liar'?
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Not a lie, but yes it was deceptive. They're implying that it wasn't what they wanted to happen, because it was only a "draft." I mean, I get why they said it that way, but it doesn't change that it was an attempt to make the public view of the company more positive through deception.
UngeheuerLich
Legend
Then call THAT out. No need to tell loes yourself.
Iosue
Legend
Which contract? The term sheets, which by definition are open to negotiation, or the OGL 1.1, which could not have been entered into unless someone published work under it?
I mean, no one sends out a contract draft with the terms they don't want to be final. That doesn't mean they expect to get it. For the sake of argument, take at face value the explanation that WotC wanted to use the royalties clause in 1.1 to gatekeep big corporations from entering the OGL market, but planned to offer the major publishers already in the market (and hardly competition for WotC) preferential deals, then yeah, wouldn't they have to provide some kind of OGL draft with the royalties clause in order to provide information and context to their potential partners?
I pointed out in dave2008's other thread that, timeline-wise, the new OGL was expected to be announced on January 4th, but was not. Linda Codega's article came out on January 5th. So sometime between when the term sheets were sent out and January 4th, before any leaks, the 1.1 draft that was sent out to 3PPs was abandoned or at least put on hold. This tracks with Kyle Brink's statement that they were already changing the OGL draft when the leaks came out.
I personally think there was an element of the "stick" in the OGL 1.1 draft to encourage taking the term sheet "carrots." And I think among its many faults, the Smug Apology was a bit disingenuous when it suggested they were just getting "input from the community." But the Smug Apology has been repudiated by Brink, and 1.1 was abandoned, so I don't get the continued nitpicking about the 1.1 and term sheets.
Enrahim2
Adventurer
I really think this draft word is a giant red herring. The real issue here was that wizards claim they were mainly soliciting feedback, and it is this claim that is disputed. The word "draft" only come up as a short form to describe the issue above, but this is fortunate for wizards if the conversation revolves around this word, as they can say with a straight face it was a draft, and be right.
They have a much harder time demonstrating they were actively seeking feedback.
They have a much harder time demonstrating they were actively seeking feedback.
dave2008
Legend
No, they have been very clear that they wanted to kill the OGL 1.0a, even in Kyle's interviews. He said their point of view at the time required killing the OGL. They no loner have that point of view, but they did at the time. He has not tried to hide that fact by saying the 1.1 was a draft. That would be silly, because the 1.2 draft also included killing the OGL 1.0(a).
So to me, it is not beside the point at all that these were drafts. Yes, they wanted to kill the OGL, but there was a lot of room to negotiate (as we saw with the 1.2). The death of the OGL wasn't the only thing in 1.1. The royalties were a big part.
Similar Threads
