Yes, because it's a "unilateral" offer: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co - WikipediaI don't immediately see how this knowledge element prohibits an interpretation of collective licensing. After all the openess of the license by it's very nature mean that at least one part of the legal arangement need to be explicitly aware of the other. In your example A do not to be aware of B.
You'll notice that in the example in the post you quoted, I talked about mutual ignorance. You are positing that B and C who have never heard of one another nevertheless end up in a legal relationship with one another. How do you suppose that is happening? Who is initiating it?
What do you mean "invoke section 13"? Here is the relevant text of section 13:It is for instance not obvious to me that A is unable to invoke section 13 on behalf of the contributors if they find D to be in breach of the terms in order to preserve the integrity of the license they rely on.
This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach.
Section 13 does not confer a power on anyone other than the licensee in breach, who enjoys a power of cure.
Of course, if I notice that a party to the OGL is in breach then I could write to them and make them aware of the breach. That wouldn't depend on me being a party to the OGL.
The "interpretation" that you and @FrogReaver are advancing makes no sense to me. It involves non-entities being parties to non-contractual agreements issuing licenses over works that don't exist using powers they haven't been granted.I agree that the reading you describe make sense, but there seem to be more principles than what you present that need to be at work to decisively refute the alternative interpretation.