[crooked-v]

That part in section 9 doesn't say that it invalidates the part in section 4, though. Reading it strictly, claiming an earlier license is "unauthorized" would merely mean that you can't use the earlier license to redistribute content put out under the later license, not that you can't use the earlier license at all.

[dndthrowwww]

Yeah, and crucially, all of the talk of WotC wanting to revoke OGL 1.0 as applied to existing material is speculation based on the leaked draft discussing its authorization -- there's no specific language claiming it is "revoked". My guess would be that they want to make it clear that despite clause 9, you can't distribute 1.1 material under the 1.0 license.

It's a clusterfuck of 1. The leaked license has some really shitty terms in it

2. Folk might be misinterpreting one particular part to mean something other than intended, but its getting the main focus right now (and also treated as absolute fact!)

3. It's leaked so WotC was completely unprepared to answer questions and/or do PR around this

If I was e.g. Paizo I would be very urgently demanding clarification, but since I'm not I'm content to wait and see what happens without getting too outraged, yet.

(I will 100% boycott WotC/D&D/MTG/etc if they actually do try to revoke 1.0 material, though.)