I'm mostly trying to talk about the legal issues. But I think that what we are seeing now was always the risk of people hitching their creative endeavours to a commercial entity's copyrighted work. To put it another way, it was never really - in legal terms - a commons. That's why I look at your desired outcome through the lens of what private rights are present licensees able to assert, and what powers do they continue to enjoy to sub-license to new parties.There's also a moral argument for protecting the open gaming commons. If a person or company has contributed work to the commons under OGL 1.0a, they intended it to be shared forever under those terms. Some of those people and companies no longer exist. They won't be moving to another license. Even if the OGL commons doesn't grow like it used to because publishers begin using the ORC, we should fight for rights of new reusers to grow the OGL commons.