And I think @Maxperson agreed they should keep slapping the 1.0a document in the back if there was anyone in the IP chain that hadn't given some other permission.I think what Maxperson is getting at is, assuming that WotC’s putative ability to “de-authorize” is actually taken as an ability to rescind their offer to license (and subsequently allow sublicenses of) their SRDs, it does not appear clear that they have the ability to prevent creators who have already offered their own content to be licensed under the OGL’s terms.
If I understand pemerton, at best, they could claim copyright infringement on the text of the OGL, if that was included in the new work. But if it’s not included, then only the creator whose work is being used could bring claim against the sub-licensee for being in breach of the license. And if they don’t, well, WotC doesn’t have any standing to take it to court.
The key is that the OGL is not a statute enforced by WotC, but that each use of OGC content is an individual license between two parties. In the case of non-SRD content, WotC is not one of the parties.
If that is all true then I think I get it.