I'm really annoyed that these headlines are saying "revocation" and "de-authorization" as if they have the same meaning. The text of the article at least gets into the difference: de-authorization is meant to prevent downgrade attacks whereas revocation is something they have no right to do in the 1.0a license (in the US at least).

What I find interesting is that the only part of this license people seem to like actually expands WotC's ability to terminate the license. In particular, they add three new ways that WotC can terminate your license that didn't exist in 1.0a:

• Illegal conduct. For instance, if you have gay characters in your content and release it in Russia they can terminate your license.
• No hateful content or conduct. "We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action." Gives them sole power to terminate and you explicitly waive any rights you have to contest it.
• The Madison Square Garden clause in section 7bi. Basically, if you take WotC to court over something like the -- extremely common -- way in which RPG companies claim rights they don't have, your licenses can be terminated.

So even the parts of this new license that sound good are constructed as traps. "No hateful content sounds great! Giving up my legal rights to contest contract termination? Absolutely not."

https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-creative-commons-licen-1850008294