Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="S'mon" data-source="post: 8887234" data-attributes="member: 463">I really do think that this leaked document was presented as "this is the OGL 1.1" to the 3PPs.I understand why the US contract lawyers here think "This can't possibly be intended to be the real contract!". I'm sure their law firms would do a much better job. But I'm pretty certain that the 3PPs under NDA were given this and told it was the offer. I really don't think there is some other, "True OGL 1.1" that was presented to them but has not been leaked.Edit: Now this purported OGL 1.1 may never have been intended to see the light of day, and never expected that anyone would actually agree to it. It may only exist to help persuade the 3PPs under NDAs to agree to other, better, licensing agreements. I'm not sure of the legality of this, it's certainly not good faith dealing IMO. But WoTC's plan might be to say "Oh, we WERE genuinely going to use this, but following feedback we've changed our mind. You 3PPs are still bound to your bespoke agreements, though!" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /></blockquote>