It's as if nothing happened, afaict. As I understand from IP attorneys who have discussed the issue publicly, 1) The SRD is all/mostly material that is non-cop

It's as if nothing happened, afaict. As I understand from IP attorneys who have discussed the issue publicly, 1) The SRD is all/mostly material that is non-copyrightable anyway; it doesn't matter how it's 'licensed'. 2) Partly as a consequence of that, the old OGL 1.0a - the license that they say they agree to continue to use - takes away rights that people legally have and offers very little in return (e.g., it offers rights to the SRD, which the licensee already has by law). You are better off publishing without it, in most cases. 3) For those who for some reason care about OGL 1.0a: Wizards of the Coast began by saying they were revoking the OGL 1.0a. Publicly commenting IP attorneys said that, because OGL 1.0a doesn't say it's irrevokable, that Wizards could probably do that. Now Wizards is leaving it in place, but presumably they could revoke it at any point. IOW, nothing has changed and the licensing was a scam to start with. The SRD license is worthless and the license for which people were clamoring actually hurts their interests. For a legal analysis that supports the above, from a credible source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-h...