That seems sensible. The course of litigation is almost never certain. And thanks for the rest of the post which provides more context about where you are coming from in your remarks. You are experienced in weighing up legal opinions and making a decision about what sorts of risks to take.Every lawyer I work with can tell me what they believe the laws say and what it really means, but until that law is actually challenged in court and it is held up or struck down, they will never give me a 100% guarantee that it is so.
My concern in these threads is that there is a broader culture which came close to fetishising the "irrevocability" of the OGL (I'm using inverted commas because the word, while it can have concreted legal meaning, was not given concrete legal meaning in the culture I'm describing) and then was utterly blindsided by WotC's move to try and "de-authorise (inverted commas for the same reason), although from the legal point of view WotC's legal manoeuvring was predictable (the relevant legal ideas and issues having been sketched, mostly by me as far as I'm aware, in posts on this forum 10 and 15 years ago).
What I'm seeing now is a running away from the OGL, when legally I think it remains very stable even in the face of an attempted withdrawal of offer by WotC, and at the same time a new fetishisation of the CC which is no better grounded in legal reasoning than the prior attitude towards the OGL.
This is not any sort of criticism of the CC licence, but rather a suggestion that having made a particular mistake once, it would be better for the culture to be more thoughtful the second time around.
I agree on the second sentence. And on the first sentence, no it does not. It's a case in which the automatic offer provision is "disapplied", even though the upstream licensor wanted it to be applied - but the context was very different from the situation that is relevant in the WotC SRD context, and I think it really tells us nothing about what would happen in that context.I hope the 2018 court case resolves this issue for you. Nothing I saw from my skim of the CC-BY licenses cases in the CC database showed one that did.
I'm not a commercial publisher and so don't have to make any decisions in this space. From a purely legal intellectual point of view I find the operation of the OGL more straightforward to understand.