Worst case: Still a faux-apology, but this time one of those super-fake ones where they just apologise for "how you feel" and maybe for their failure to keep it secret, or that they "trusted the wrong people". No changes to the OGL 1.1, rather some "clarifications" which are actually 100% spin, and probably the dreaded claim that they "had to do this" to "fight the bigots" (without actually naming any or giving any examples at all, of something that hasn't actually been a major issue under the OGL), though even worst-case I don't think they'll lean TOO hard on that because it's a point of vulnerability. I think they still might clarify that it's opt-in, if only to prevent legal action, but won't clarify the status of other SRDs and may go ahead and remove them from the internet and so on (possibly even attempting to quietly DMCA people who keep them up).
I don't think it's likely to be that bad, but I think it's a lot more likely than the best case.
Re: signing it, hard to say if someone will, because that can play either way. But if they make Crawford or Perkins sign it (mere underlings of these more illustrious figures), I'll be pretty angry, because that's just not taking responsibility, and not having the buck stop with you.
www.enworld.org
