Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 8933985" data-attributes="member: 6680772">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 &quot;stick&quot; in the OGL 1.1 draft to encourage taking the term sheet &quot;carrots.&quot; And I think among its many faults, the Smug Apology was a bit disingenuous when it suggested they were just getting &quot;input from the community.&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 8933985, member: 6680772"] 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 [I]don't[/I] 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[I] just[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification