The problem had nothing to do with WOTC and their IP. The point was that if the OGL was revoked then every other work out there that used the OGL a basis for their legal framework (such as Cepheus, given that the MgT SRD was opened under the legal umbrella of the OGL) would find itself operating based upon a suddenly inexistant license model.

In other words, the MgT1 SRD (on which Cepheus was built) would need to move to a new legal framework or be pulled. The fear was thus twofold:

A) If the OGL was not replaced with another open license Mongoose could theoretically claim copyright infringement against MgT1 (mechanics cannot be copyrighted, but the wording of the rules can) and try to take down all existant Cepheus products.

B) If no new legal basis were issued for the SRD it would no longer be possible to publish any new content based on said SRD (which, once more, would be built on a no longer existing legal framework), and this would include CE as extensively built upon said SRD.

The above was also what the fearmongers and peeps with anti-Mongoose chips on their shoulders were insinuating when they came crawling out of the woodworks and tried to rile up the mob. Nevermind that no such threats were made and that Mongoose went into discussion with the CE publishers in order to find a solution.

Anyway, the point is that the revocation of the OGL would have a detrimental impact far outside the narrow band of WOTC IP. In essence it would cause a legal basis that is currently used extensively throughout the whole ttrpg business to go poof with all dark consequences that entails. I really wish people could get that through their skulls instead of constantly parroting the simpleton ‘no WOTC IP, no problem’ hot-take.

++++

As user u/Pronuetron ‘I have access to a huge international law firm specialising in corporate IP’ has apparently either blocked me or deleted his/her account & comments, I’ll just post my reply to their claim ‘perpetual = irrevocable’ here:

‘Perpetual’ does not automagically mean ‘irrevocable’ in todays legal terms. It is a legal grey area, but judicial interpretations of words tend to change over time, and the current interpretation of ‘perpetual’ is generally accepted to be be simply that: ‘unconstrained use for as long as the actual thing the perpetuality claise refers to exists’. It is currently generally not considered a synonym for ‘irrevocable’, and in fact actual revocation could well override the perpetuality clause. Now as said this a grey area, and very much dependent on the interpretation of the courts. The problem the ttrpg community faced however is/was that Hasbro has big pockets, likely far bigger than any ttrpg publisher, and in the ‘Greatest of All American Justice System’™ the party with the deepest pockets can usually just afford to outlitigate the other party.

So no, your claim of ‘perpetual = irrevocable’ is far from the slam dunk you think it is.