Ok, I'll try.
My understanding of CC licenses is that while they generally promote sharing, they are actually more of a toolbox that allows non-lawyers to specify how content they created can be re-used in derived works in a legally sound way.
The building blocks are:
- BY = attribute/credit the author
- SA = "share alike" - derived work has to use the same "licensing" terms
- ND = no derivates - can only be used "as is"
- NC = no commercial use
From these blocks, CC built four licenses: CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, CC-BY-NC, CC-BY-NC-SA, CC-BY-NC-ND.
Comparing it to the OGL 1.0(a), you can IMO achieve a similar licensing effect, if you remove all things you consider product identity from your SRD and share the remaining document under CC-BY license (which neither imposes sharing under the same conditions nor forbids commercial use). You might then also share what exactly you consider product identity in a separate document, but I don't think you have to. The important part is, of course, that you have to make sure that you really do not accidentally provide product identity parts in your SRD. Which is, of course, a less convenient than the OGL where you can simply declare the parts as product identity.