There is no such entity known as the “contributors” that could become the licensor.
Are you seriously suggesting that if WotC were to publish DnD material the violates the ogl, that any ogl contributor could them sue them?
I earlier used the term "legal entity" I now realise that is likely completely wrong, and might have confused the conversation.
The OGL clearly demands "Contributors" to be accepted as at least a concept.
However calling this concept an "entity" seem to be comming with too much legal baggage. The OGL appear to consider this concept important in defining one part of the contract. Interpreting meaning into the concept of "contributor" hence seem important for understanding the contract.
The interpretation we are talking about now involves the possibility that one of the properties of the concept of "Contributors" is that it is clearly described as one of the parts of the license contract, and that it further can be said that it is this concept that is best described as the "licensor" in terms of the contract.
Indeed if there is somewhere a requirement that a contract part or a licensor has to be a single entity rather than a "collective" as described by the term "Contributors" in this license agreement, more complex elaboration is needed to see how this indeed can be considered a well formed license agreement at all.
Is this agreement essentially "I agree with Santa Claus, that anyone can license my designated work by entering the same kind of agreement with Santa Claus, and Santa Claus offers this agreement to everyone"? If not, what is the key difference? (I am genuinely curious, as I hope this line of thinking might get us out of the conceptual quagmire this thread seem to be stuck in now. I really don't know how to understand this OGL anymore)