OGL 1.0(a) is a weak and out of date agreement. If it weren't, we wouldn't be in this spot today. Just getting WOTC to leave 1.0(a) alone is NOT sufficient. It just kicks the can down the road until WOTC tries again. And it wouldn't matter in the short term anyways. The 3rd party publishers can't unsee the risk to their businesses and livelihoods. There is absolutely no scenario where we just go back to where things were a month ago. The folks whose line in the sand is merely not deauthorizing OGL 1.0(a) are failing to understand the scope of the issue.
There must be a new agreement, whether that's ORC or Creative Commons or some good faith attempt at a new OGL by WOTC (and 1.2 is NOT a good faith attempt.) The new agreement must guarantee the licenses of already published works, and provide a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free license for future works without draconian back doors such as the morality and severance clauses in 1.2.
There must be a new agreement, whether that's ORC or Creative Commons or some good faith attempt at a new OGL by WOTC (and 1.2 is NOT a good faith attempt.) The new agreement must guarantee the licenses of already published works, and provide a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free license for future works without draconian back doors such as the morality and severance clauses in 1.2.