I haven't really been commenting throughout the larger OGL controversy... it all seems very open to interpretation and the legality key elements seems fairly uncertain, and the constant supposition and theories have been pretty crazy. So I figured best to just pay half attention from a distance.
I think the speed with which we all expect/demand/want answers these days can at times have a negative impact instead of a positive one. Whether an NDA or similar restriction applies or not (though it certainly seems likely) I actually appreciate that it seems the CR folks are taking their time and offering a considered take instead of just adding to the loud and often rash reactions we've seen throughout.
I won't ever defend WotC's shenanigans, no matter if they're within their legal rights to revoke the old OGL, and no matter what version of it they wind up offering in place of it. They handled this incredibly poorly, and I would say to the potential detriment of their product and its longevity. They've also put many other businesses at risk.
But, I don't think that seeking an alternate creative commons or ORC or any other idea that's been proposed which will basically allow the industry to continue to prop up some version of D&D as the dominant product in RPGs is really the best idea. Perhaps if everyone who was going to make 5E products instead made something else, it would lead to more variety in the hobby. And it would also, perhaps, force WotC to be more creative themselves. Like they won't be able to rely on the creativity of others along with their market position to do the heavy lifting.
Maybe that would all be a good thing.
Anyway, as vague and cryptic as the comments from the CR folks have been, I can't help but read them with the above in mind. They're all for creators and for variety and a diverse market.... which all sound like great things to me, too. But I'm not sure if their stance will be compatible with the ORC or any attempts to promote or maintain one dominant system in the hobby.