BTW us non-lawyer rabid hyenaspeons people read the word 'draft' and go under the crazy assumption that it is connected to the dictionary definition of the word:
The bold parts are my emphasis. They really should have used the word 'document' instead of 'draft' in this statement.
Even your own definition uses the word draft in the what you call "non-lawyer" sense--it refers to draft treaties, which effectively translates to a fancy way of saying "draft contracts between nations."
Plus, I have sent countless copies of draft contracts to clients--almost always saying something like "please see attached opposing counsel's recent draft document." Never once has someone been confused by the usage of the word draft. Ever. Angry about the terms it contains? Sure. Irrational and wanting to retaliate in a way that is counterproductive? Of course. Confused by the word draft being used in its plain meaning? Nope.
Again the wiser idea would have been using the word 'document' in this statement just so we didn't have to argue about this stupid thing.
Oh and just to reiterate a key part of the definition:
c: a preliminarysketch, outline, or version
Unless you are also asserting that the OGL was finalized, ratified, and put into effect--which it decidedly was not--it remained preliminary. I am not sure the problem here lies with either the definition or choice of word--the very definition you keep harping on is very clearly applicable to Wizards' use.
I get that you are clearly very angry--this is not the hill you want to die on. Doubling down on "oops, I did not even read my own definition" makes you look bad--and that, in turn, undermines any legitimacy you might have when trying to make more salient points. And there are salient points to be made--so don't squander your credibility on something that can be waved away through a basic comprehension of English.
I get that you are clearly very angry--this is not the hill you want to die on. Doubling down on "oops, I did not even read my own definition" makes you look bad--and that, in turn, undermines any legitimacy you might have when trying to make more salient points.
It doesn't matter.
The majority of the people who are upset will never see any posts pointing out the legal definition. They will never be educated about the fact that "draft" is a technically correct term, and even if they did it certainly wouldn't make them go, "oh, THAT is why they used the word, okay then." As long as WotC keeps calling it a draft, people being people, and colloquial English being what most people use, WotC will continue to come off to the public as even shadier than they are (which is honestly quite a feat.) The sooner they stop using the word, no matter how technically accurate, the better.
Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Between their clearly unchanged future intentions, their dismissive attitude toward their customers/fans, and their abysmal PR instincts, they will in all likelihood continue to play coy and hide behind "it was a draft," while their obvious chicanery in doing so will continue to alienate their fanbase and exacerbate the situation.
BTW us non-lawyer rabid hyenaspeons people read the word 'draft' and go under the crazy assumption that it is connected to the dictionary definition of the word:
The majority of the people who are upset will never see any posts pointing out the legal definition. They will never be educated about the fact that "draft" is a technically correct term, and even if they did it certainly wouldn't make them go, "oh, THAT is why they used the word, okay then." As long as WotC keeps calling it a draft, people being people, and colloquial English being what most people use, WotC will continue to come off to the public as even shadier than they are (which is honestly quite a feat.) The sooner they stop using the word, no matter how technically accurate, the better.
There isn't an alternative that's both correct and significantly different. You can call it "proposed" instead of "draft", but I don't think anyone would be any happier with that terminology.
The reality is, someone offering a contract and someone else going 'hell no' is a normal part of negotiation, and, aside from the fact that Wizards is negotiating with a diffuse group of interests rather than a discrete entity, what's going on right now is negotiation.
The issue is not with the specific wording of “draft” or “preliminary”. The issue is with Wizards using that idea that it was not the final published version as some sort of excuse. The implication being that the “final” document would not have had the objectionable content - but they just hadn’t gotten around to editing those bits out yet before the leaks.
These were not typos. These were Wizards’ desires.
If I threw a paragraph praising nazis into the bottom of this post and then claimed “oh sorry, that was an early draft - I hit post too quickly” when called on it, you wouldn’t say “oh, thats ok then, happens to the best of us”. You’d wonder why that was in that draft in the first place.
I believe this storm will pass one day, no matter the outcome/what system we will be using to play our beloved game. 3rd part content creators have a big say in it, and all we can do is support them to be treated fairly. But I feel that OneD&D is bigger then the current discussion about the OGL, and I still am positively curious about where that is going.
Untill then I will read these forums and be fascinated to see all the ingame rules-lawyers transcending into thinking they’re actual lawyers.
The issue is not with the specific wording of “draft” or “preliminary”. The issue is with Wizards using that idea that it was not the final published version as some sort of excuse. The implication being that the “final” document would not have had the objectionable content - but they just hadn’t gotten around to editing those bits out yet before the leaks.
These were not typos. These were Wizards’ desires.
If I threw a paragraph praising nazis into the bottom of this post and then claimed “oh sorry, that was an early draft - I hit post too quickly” when called on it, you wouldn’t say “oh, thats ok then, happens to the best of us”. You’d wonder why that was in that draft in the first place.
There is a (incredibly obvious) difference between "legalese terms we put in there as part of negotiations" and "actively praising evil." Actively praising evil in a draft would have no legitimate purpose and would be a major red flag. Aggressive legalese, on the other hand, is pretty standard in negotiations--you can start from a position of "here is our opening play, let's negotiate down from here." They do not represent the true intent of the person drafting the document--they represent "okay, I need to start much higher than my actual intent so that, when the other side asks for concessions, we might meet in the middle where my actual intent sits."
In lawyer to lawyer conversations with clients who understand this process, all that is generally well accepted, and often those more out-there terms are joked about in off the record "yeah, we both know that's not what is going to happen and not what your client wants" kinds of conversations. The problem is when these terms leave the confines of folks who understand that a draft does not always equate to intent.
The issue is not with the specific wording of “draft” or “preliminary”. The issue is with Wizards using that idea that it was not the final published version as some sort of excuse. The implication being that the “final” document would not have had the objectionable content - but they just hadn’t gotten around to editing those bits out yet before the leaks.
These were not typos. These were Wizards’ desires.
If I threw a paragraph praising nazis into the bottom of this post and then claimed “oh sorry, that was an early draft - I hit post too quickly” when called on it, you wouldn’t say “oh, thats ok then, happens to the best of us”. You’d wonder why that was in that draft in the first place.
There is a (incredibly obvious) difference between "legalese terms we put in there as part of negotiations" and "actively praising evil." Actively praising evil in a draft would have no legitimate purpose and would be a major red flag. Aggressive legalese, on the other hand, is pretty standard in negotiations--you can start from a position of "here is our opening play, let's negotiate down from here." They do not represent the true intent of the person drafting the document--they represent "okay, I need to start much higher than my actual intent so that, when the other side asks for concessions, we might meet in the middle where my actual intent sits."
In lawyer to lawyer conversations with clients who understand this process, all that is generally well accepted, and often those more out-there terms are joked about in off the record "yeah, we both know that's not what is going to happen and not what your client wants" kinds of conversations. The problem is when these terms leave the confines of folks who understand that a draft does not always equate to intent.
So, what. Wizards was expecting Kobold Press to counter with a version where Wizards has to pay them $.25 for every dollar kobold press brings in over $750,000 and this was the only way to protect themselves and meet in the middle and get something similar to OGL1.0a?
Even halfway between 1.0a and what was leaked was bad. The old OGL was fine, the only reason to negotiate was to try to get more concessions from 3PP. And people are mad that Wizards seems to want to do that.
And sure, lawyers might be able to negotiate out the more egregious bits, but perhaps we’d prefer to just have a boilerplate version that starts without the egregious bits so that every dude who wants to publish 3 pages about a few cool weapons doesn’t have to find a lawyer to spend a couple weeks negotiating before putting it up on drivethroughrpg?
The majority of the people who are upset will never see any posts pointing out the legal definition. They will never be educated about the fact that "draft" is a technically correct term, and even if they did it certainly wouldn't make them go, "oh, THAT is why they used the word, okay then." As long as WotC keeps calling it a draft, people being people, and colloquial English being what most people use, WotC will continue to come off to the public as even shadier than they are (which is honestly quite a feat.) The sooner they stop using the word, no matter how technically accurate, the better.
There isn't an alternative that's both correct and significantly different. You can call it "proposed" instead of "draft", but I don't think anyone would be any happier with that terminology.
Really?
Have you seen Twitter's reaction to that single word "draft?" You honestly believe that if they suddenly switched to using the phrase "the proposed license," or "the license we had proposed," it wouldn't mollify, however little, a good portion of the people basically accusing them of outright lying right now?
Have you seen Twitter's reaction to that single word "draft?" You honestly believe that if they suddenly switched to using the phrase "the proposed license," or "the license we had proposed," it wouldn't mollify, however little, a good portion of the people basically accusing them of outright lying right now?
No, I don't think that wording change would meaningfully affect people's reactions.
What's funny to me is WOTC seems to forget who their target audience has grown up to be. There are so many professionals among the group, including lawyers. It will be impossible for them to obfuscate their way out of this. The new proposal is a smoke screen. The solution is simple and can be done by adding a SINGLE word into the existing OGL. That doesn't take two weeks to run a survey. That doesn't take some indeterminate amount of time to formulate a response to the survey.
The sad fact is it may already be too late. I have played D&D since the beginning. I won't be any more. I will miss it.
What's funny to me is WOTC seems to forget who their target audience has grown up to be. There are so many professionals among the group, including lawyers. It will be impossible for them to obfuscate their way out of this. The new proposal is a smoke screen. The solution is simple and can be done by adding a SINGLE word into the existing OGL. That doesn't take two weeks to run a survey. That doesn't take some indeterminate amount of time to formulate a response to the survey.
The sad fact is it may already be too late. I have played D&D since the beginning. I won't be any more. I will miss it.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Speaking for the lawyers in my party, each of them is responding somewhere between mild amusement that players apparently don’t know what “draft” means, think “irrevocable” means something it doesn’t, and think that the extraordinarily poorly written 1.0 is worthwhile as a document, or open mockery for the same. As it turns out, folks who are professionally trained to understand how contract negotiations work and who know that process can look more messy and aggressive than it actually is are not going to be phased by that process.
Don’t expect some large groundswell of support from professionals - you may very well find they are not of the same mind as you.
Just adding an "in perpetuity" or something to the OGL doesn't address the issue that it's very vague about what it covers, and a lot of what people think they need the OGL for is already covered simply by merit of the fact you can't claim IP ownership of a process. Wizards is also likely looking to add some language so they can block/disavow any hate-based content from being created and tacitly associated with them. Based on the past few weeks, I can see why they would not want someone to dig up some nut's thinly-if-at-all-veiled manifesto couched in a D&D 3rd party product and start running a "WotC/Hasboro supports this" video on YouTube. As much as you all scream for it, it's pretty clear they're going to put out an updated license. Best thing to do at this point is review it, participate in the survey, and make clear we're holding them to the commitments they've made in the past few days or we walk.
I just dont get it... what kind of survey or feedback, do they need... I think its been said loud and clear by the players, by the community and actions of other 3rd party publisher speak quite plainly... In this new statement which is better worder, but gives nothing new... they still claim anything publishED under 1.0a will not be affected... past tense. I mean look at the LinkedIn profiles of these exceutives...... I dont know man...
It's not complicated. They're putting out a new license. To some degree they were hoping to capitalize on this new license to increase their revenues, but the community backlash has been strong enough that they've backtracked that idea. They've publicly drawn a few lines in response to the recent furor that look like they'll support open production of the kind of 3rd party content everyone was worried they were coming after; and while that's not legally binding in and of itself going back on their word that publicly would not do them any favors. To a certain point the survey is probably bread and circuses in response to the aforementioned backlash, and I'm sure they're not so blameless as they present in the articles, but as long as the new license doesn't create any significant burdens for people to keep producing the usual 3rd party content, I rather doubt we're looking at the kind of end times some people have been making this out to be.
TLDR: Yes, the old OGL is probably coming to a close for future products. No, most likely that is not a portent of the end of the world as the corpo's come for your art and your soul. If you really don't like it, you can walk away from D&D and see how the new ORC license that's being worked on shakes out.
TLDR: Yes, the old OGL is probably coming to a close for future products. No, most likely that is not a portent of the end of the world as the corpo's come for your art and your soul. If you really don't like it, you can walk away from D&D and see how the new ORC license that's being worked on shakes out.
I think you are mostly right in that assessment. And I think those are the issues being confounded in the discussion. There's the purely technical and practical perspectives of licensing and its impact on other publishers. And then there's the more emotionally charged and personal perspectives on the culture of role playing.
It is always difficult to go from open to closed - and while I consider that Wizards are probably within their right to do so from a technical perspective, it does mean that they are now a company that no longer aligns with some of many peoples (including mine) perspectives on how the hobby works best in terms of inclusivity and diversity of projects, products, and people.
So often in these forums I've seen threads about the game that starts as a discussion about a specific rule interpretation, but end up with advice on improved communication around the table among DM and players. I find this a strong analogy to the current situation, and I think I am finding the DM (Hasbro) of this table (D&D) is wanting to run the game in a style where I had better walk off and find a new game. Not based on a single action or rules interpretation, but by an overall feel and communication style.
I just dont get it... what kind of survey or feedback, do they need... I think its been said loud and clear by the players, by the community and actions of other 3rd party publisher speak quite plainly...
To be fair, the Australian government spent AUD$80.5 million (of a AUD$122 million budget) of tax payer money, to send out a yes/no survey to legalise same sex marriage, when it was 'the right things to do' and Australians were 'loud and clear' (albeit with a roughly 62% / 38% split in the end, and only 79% returned). Saved the politicians from actually having an opinion and making a decision, and allowed them to 'align' themselves with the 'correct' opinion.
It isn't quite the same thing here, but WotC is well aware of the public opinion, and could make the decision today if they wanted to, but the goal is to get away with as much as is viable (to make more money, because business), so a 'survey' is good faith on the surface, and potentially manipulative in the roots. Given the data will likely be confidential (as, arguably it should), it will be easier to have the data land in their favour and say "well, it turns out only 20% of respondents were upset about A, so in good faith we won't do A, but otherwise we have community support so will go ahead with X, Y, Z because no one actually has an issue with it." It is very easy to spin data in your favour if you are the only one with access to said data.
Doomsayer perhaps, and content creators aside, having so many individual 3PP's come out in direct opposition, it's either believe WotC (who wants your money), or a plethora of 3PPs (who also want your money), but one has numbers on 'their side', and the other is a single entity that kinda got caught with it's pants down and have not exactly been transparent / claimed that 'we both won'. :shrug:
It's gaslighting. Nitpicky is a nice way of putting it. They intended for it to be the final version. If it had not have leaked, then it may well have been.
To use a term in a technical manner whilst speaking in a colloquial manner in an attempt to mislead is clearly an attempt to get away with a lie via technicality.
It was a lie the first time and a lie this time. There is zero evidence that they were interested in feedback. Unless you count pushback under threat of lawsuit as feedback.
Maybe it is in a "technical" sense. But it is obviously not something which they wanted.
Unless you are also asserting that the OGL was finalized, ratified, and put into effect--which it decidedly was not--it remained preliminary. I am not sure the problem here lies with either the definition or choice of word--the very definition you keep harping on is very clearly applicable to Wizards' use.
I get that you are clearly very angry--this is not the hill you want to die on. Doubling down on "oops, I did not even read my own definition" makes you look bad--and that, in turn, undermines any legitimacy you might have when trying to make more salient points. And there are salient points to be made--so don't squander your credibility on something that can be waved away through a basic comprehension of English.
It doesn't matter.
The majority of the people who are upset will never see any posts pointing out the legal definition. They will never be educated about the fact that "draft" is a technically correct term, and even if they did it certainly wouldn't make them go, "oh, THAT is why they used the word, okay then." As long as WotC keeps calling it a draft, people being people, and colloquial English being what most people use, WotC will continue to come off to the public as even shadier than they are (which is honestly quite a feat.) The sooner they stop using the word, no matter how technically accurate, the better.
Unfortunately, I don't see that happening. Between their clearly unchanged future intentions, their dismissive attitude toward their customers/fans, and their abysmal PR instincts, they will in all likelihood continue to play coy and hide behind "it was a draft," while their obvious chicanery in doing so will continue to alienate their fanbase and exacerbate the situation.
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
A document that has not yet been released and finalized is correctly described as preliminary.
There isn't an alternative that's both correct and significantly different. You can call it "proposed" instead of "draft", but I don't think anyone would be any happier with that terminology.
The reality is, someone offering a contract and someone else going 'hell no' is a normal part of negotiation, and, aside from the fact that Wizards is negotiating with a diffuse group of interests rather than a discrete entity, what's going on right now is negotiation.
The issue is not with the specific wording of “draft” or “preliminary”. The issue is with Wizards using that idea that it was not the final published version as some sort of excuse. The implication being that the “final” document would not have had the objectionable content - but they just hadn’t gotten around to editing those bits out yet before the leaks.
These were not typos. These were Wizards’ desires.
If I threw a paragraph praising nazis into the bottom of this post and then claimed “oh sorry, that was an early draft - I hit post too quickly” when called on it, you wouldn’t say “oh, thats ok then, happens to the best of us”. You’d wonder why that was in that draft in the first place.
I believe this storm will pass one day, no matter the outcome/what system we will be using to play our beloved game. 3rd part content creators have a big say in it, and all we can do is support them to be treated fairly. But I feel that OneD&D is bigger then the current discussion about the OGL, and I still am positively curious about where that is going.
Untill then I will read these forums and be fascinated to see all the ingame rules-lawyers transcending into thinking they’re actual lawyers.
There is a (incredibly obvious) difference between "legalese terms we put in there as part of negotiations" and "actively praising evil." Actively praising evil in a draft would have no legitimate purpose and would be a major red flag. Aggressive legalese, on the other hand, is pretty standard in negotiations--you can start from a position of "here is our opening play, let's negotiate down from here." They do not represent the true intent of the person drafting the document--they represent "okay, I need to start much higher than my actual intent so that, when the other side asks for concessions, we might meet in the middle where my actual intent sits."
In lawyer to lawyer conversations with clients who understand this process, all that is generally well accepted, and often those more out-there terms are joked about in off the record "yeah, we both know that's not what is going to happen and not what your client wants" kinds of conversations. The problem is when these terms leave the confines of folks who understand that a draft does not always equate to intent.
So, what. Wizards was expecting Kobold Press to counter with a version where Wizards has to pay them $.25 for every dollar kobold press brings in over $750,000 and this was the only way to protect themselves and meet in the middle and get something similar to OGL1.0a?
Even halfway between 1.0a and what was leaked was bad. The old OGL was fine, the only reason to negotiate was to try to get more concessions from 3PP. And people are mad that Wizards seems to want to do that.
And sure, lawyers might be able to negotiate out the more egregious bits, but perhaps we’d prefer to just have a boilerplate version that starts without the egregious bits so that every dude who wants to publish 3 pages about a few cool weapons doesn’t have to find a lawyer to spend a couple weeks negotiating before putting it up on drivethroughrpg?
Really?
Have you seen Twitter's reaction to that single word "draft?" You honestly believe that if they suddenly switched to using the phrase "the proposed license," or "the license we had proposed," it wouldn't mollify, however little, a good portion of the people basically accusing them of outright lying right now?
Sterling - V. Human Bard 3 (College of Art) - [Pic] - [Traits] - in Bards: Dragon Heist (w/ Mansion) - Jasper's [Pic] - Sterling's [Sigil]
Tooltips Post (2024 PHB updates) - incl. General Rules
>> New FOW threat & treasure tables: fow-advanced-threat-tables.pdf fow-advanced-treasure-table.pdf
No, I don't think that wording change would meaningfully affect people's reactions.
What's funny to me is WOTC seems to forget who their target audience has grown up to be. There are so many professionals among the group, including lawyers. It will be impossible for them to obfuscate their way out of this. The new proposal is a smoke screen. The solution is simple and can be done by adding a SINGLE word into the existing OGL. That doesn't take two weeks to run a survey. That doesn't take some indeterminate amount of time to formulate a response to the survey.
The sad fact is it may already be too late. I have played D&D since the beginning. I won't be any more. I will miss it.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
Speaking for the lawyers in my party, each of them is responding somewhere between mild amusement that players apparently don’t know what “draft” means, think “irrevocable” means something it doesn’t, and think that the extraordinarily poorly written 1.0 is worthwhile as a document, or open mockery for the same. As it turns out, folks who are professionally trained to understand how contract negotiations work and who know that process can look more messy and aggressive than it actually is are not going to be phased by that process.
Don’t expect some large groundswell of support from professionals - you may very well find they are not of the same mind as you.
Just adding an "in perpetuity" or something to the OGL doesn't address the issue that it's very vague about what it covers, and a lot of what people think they need the OGL for is already covered simply by merit of the fact you can't claim IP ownership of a process. Wizards is also likely looking to add some language so they can block/disavow any hate-based content from being created and tacitly associated with them. Based on the past few weeks, I can see why they would not want someone to dig up some nut's thinly-if-at-all-veiled manifesto couched in a D&D 3rd party product and start running a "WotC/Hasboro supports this" video on YouTube. As much as you all scream for it, it's pretty clear they're going to put out an updated license. Best thing to do at this point is review it, participate in the survey, and make clear we're holding them to the commitments they've made in the past few days or we walk.
I just dont get it... what kind of survey or feedback, do they need... I think its been said loud and clear by the players, by the community and actions of other 3rd party publisher speak quite plainly... In this new statement which is better worder, but gives nothing new... they still claim anything publishED under 1.0a will not be affected... past tense. I mean look at the LinkedIn profiles of these exceutives...... I dont know man...
It's not complicated. They're putting out a new license. To some degree they were hoping to capitalize on this new license to increase their revenues, but the community backlash has been strong enough that they've backtracked that idea. They've publicly drawn a few lines in response to the recent furor that look like they'll support open production of the kind of 3rd party content everyone was worried they were coming after; and while that's not legally binding in and of itself going back on their word that publicly would not do them any favors. To a certain point the survey is probably bread and circuses in response to the aforementioned backlash, and I'm sure they're not so blameless as they present in the articles, but as long as the new license doesn't create any significant burdens for people to keep producing the usual 3rd party content, I rather doubt we're looking at the kind of end times some people have been making this out to be.
TLDR: Yes, the old OGL is probably coming to a close for future products. No, most likely that is not a portent of the end of the world as the corpo's come for your art and your soul. If you really don't like it, you can walk away from D&D and see how the new ORC license that's being worked on shakes out.
I think you are mostly right in that assessment. And I think those are the issues being confounded in the discussion. There's the purely technical and practical perspectives of licensing and its impact on other publishers. And then there's the more emotionally charged and personal perspectives on the culture of role playing.
It is always difficult to go from open to closed - and while I consider that Wizards are probably within their right to do so from a technical perspective, it does mean that they are now a company that no longer aligns with some of many peoples (including mine) perspectives on how the hobby works best in terms of inclusivity and diversity of projects, products, and people.
So often in these forums I've seen threads about the game that starts as a discussion about a specific rule interpretation, but end up with advice on improved communication around the table among DM and players. I find this a strong analogy to the current situation, and I think I am finding the DM (Hasbro) of this table (D&D) is wanting to run the game in a style where I had better walk off and find a new game. Not based on a single action or rules interpretation, but by an overall feel and communication style.
To be fair, the Australian government spent AUD$80.5 million (of a AUD$122 million budget) of tax payer money, to send out a yes/no survey to legalise same sex marriage, when it was 'the right things to do' and Australians were 'loud and clear' (albeit with a roughly 62% / 38% split in the end, and only 79% returned).
Saved the politicians from actually having an opinion and making a decision, and allowed them to 'align' themselves with the 'correct' opinion.
It isn't quite the same thing here, but WotC is well aware of the public opinion, and could make the decision today if they wanted to, but the goal is to get away with as much as is viable (to make more money, because business), so a 'survey' is good faith on the surface, and potentially manipulative in the roots. Given the data will likely be confidential (as, arguably it should), it will be easier to have the data land in their favour and say "well, it turns out only 20% of respondents were upset about A, so in good faith we won't do A, but otherwise we have community support so will go ahead with X, Y, Z because no one actually has an issue with it."
It is very easy to spin data in your favour if you are the only one with access to said data.
Doomsayer perhaps, and content creators aside, having so many individual 3PP's come out in direct opposition, it's either believe WotC (who wants your money), or a plethora of 3PPs (who also want your money), but one has numbers on 'their side', and the other is a single entity that kinda got caught with it's pants down and have not exactly been transparent / claimed that 'we both won'. :shrug:
(Unlike Hasbro, you may take this meme and recreate it without my permission)
It's gaslighting. Nitpicky is a nice way of putting it.
They intended for it to be the final version. If it had not have leaked, then it may well have been.
To use a term in a technical manner whilst speaking in a colloquial manner in an attempt to mislead is clearly an attempt to get away with a lie via technicality.
It was a lie the first time and a lie this time. There is zero evidence that they were interested in feedback. Unless you count pushback under threat of lawsuit as feedback.
Maybe it is in a "technical" sense. But it is obviously not something which they wanted.
OGL 1.0 is the >current< ogl.