I don't really understand what I'm reading about this new 1.2 deal. People are calling it a win.
There isn't a 1.2 deal. What happened is that Wizards said they are no longer mucking around with the OGL 1.0a by trying to reauthorize it. And they released the SRD 5.1 under the Creative Commons license specifically CC-BY. The only requirement for using its content is putting Wizard's credit in the work.
Other people are calling it 'not a win'.
Now that the OGL 1.0a has been put under a microscope there are flaws folks, including myself want fixed in order to preserve all the open game content of the last 23 years for reuse. Wizards did not explicitly disclaim their right to reauthorize the license. Along with putting the D20 SRD and the D20 Modern SRD under creative commons as well.
But in fairness, now that the SRD 5.1 is licensed under a creative commons, there not a whole of economic incentive by Wizards to try to fuck up OGL 1.0a again. During this whole debate nobody disputed that Wizards could put OneD&D under a different license like they did with D&D 4e.
The lynch mob seems to have gotten bored and gone home (there to plot amongst themselves?).
Now that the immediate danger is over, it replaced by a quiet determination to sever the industry and hobby from having to deal with Wizards. The Open RPG Content (ORC) license initiative will continue. People with original systems and like to share open content will likely either move away from the OGL or dual license with Creative Commons. Many are waiting to see what happens with ORC. Some are moving on to alternatives like Pathfinder 2e. Some are just planning never to buy from Wizards again.
In general this will be an inflection points with most of the hobby and industry going one way and Wizards with a shrunken audience going another.
Should I become despondent and stop pretending like I'm going to publish this ridiculous vanity project someday? Did this only ever really affect the publishers of retro-clone rule systems in the OSR community and the rest of us were splatting the OGL boilerplate in the back of our adventures out of politeness?
The point of the OGL and content released under the OGL like the d20 SRD, and the SRD 5.1 is to provide certainty over what the IP holder, Wizards for example, was OK with as far as what folks used to share or publish content.
That certainty has been shattered. What you can rely on in that there is now a CC-BY licensed SRD 5.1 that contains all of what you need to support 5e, along the terms needed to provide the certainty that retro-clone are OK. If D20 still your jam , the OGL 1.0a remains intact. And as a hobby publisher likely the worst outcome you will experience is a cease & desist if the next change in management at Wizards turn out to have even bigger assholes then then the current management team has.
If your project relies on a third party work like Swords & Wizardry then you need to use OGL until the author offers a new license.
My plan is to continue to use the OGL 1.0a for my rules stuff and dual license my setting stuff under CC-BY and OGL 1.0a. After ORC comes out, after Matt Finch come up with the next editions of Swords & Wizardry, I will see what I need to do as far as licensing goes.
If I wanted too it would be relatively straight forward for my Majestic Fantasy RPG to it's own thing. Only a handful of paragraphs were cut and pasted from S&W Core 2e (the version of S&W I started with). And I can easily re-write those if need be. But I don't really want to do this as I like to keep things as frictionless as possible for people use other OSR stuff and reuse my stuff.