This is Anonymous Game Developer 2 from AGDI. I hope to clarify a few things here.
First up, Baggins, I've truly been able to appreciate the contributions you've made to the KQ Omnipedia. It's a an excellent reference resource, and you clearly know your stuff as far as the KQ universe is concerned. I also agree with quite a bit of what you say. Though, I do think there are overly negative connotations attached to words like retcon, mary stu/gary stu, and other staples associated with fan-fiction, almost to the point that they have become dirty words! However, these types of additions are not always such terrible things if they're approached in the right manner and aid the storytelling subtly.
Regarding licensing: at the time we developed the King's Quest II remake (an entire decade ago in 2002), we had no commercial aspirations toward any Sierra IP. The game was, for all intents and purposes, a work of fan fiction written & submitted to us by a beta-tester-turned-team-member. We thought it would be a great, fleshed-out opportunity to expand upon the original AGI game's story. It was also the obvious logical step after our KQ1 remake. So, we decided to turn it into a game. The King's Quest 3 Redux design document was being penned around the same time KQ2VGA released, so much of the Father continuity flowed into KQ3 Redux's design from an early stage. It wasn't until much later that we realized we could potentially make something commercial out of our games. The non-canonical nature of our early KQ plots can be viewed as the result of fans making a free KQ game for kicks (and having freedom to take some liberties) as opposed to a group focused on developing part of the official series.
However, I want to be clear that King's Quest 2 RTS was never advertised or marketed to be an official sequel to the King's Quest series and our disclaimer at the beginning tried to make this clear. We've always claimed it to be exactly what it is: an alternate retelling in playable form, as opposed to written fan-fiction form. Truth be told, there are some elements in Romancing the Stones that I felt strayed from the King's Quest paradigm, even at the time of development. But we've always listened intently to fan feedback and tried to cater to suggestions. That's part of the reason why the Father role was drastically reduced in KQ3 Redux. Actually, the latest rewrite of the Redux design document had it so that all of the Father plot points were avoidable and the game could alternatively be played as more of a 1:1 experience, but sadly time constraints and other factors forced us to abandon that idea.
As I've mentioned before, had such a KQ remake been an officially licensed product from the outset, rest-assured it would have been designed and approached with the established canon in mind at all times. We really have no intentions of diverting official canon into a new form of pseudo-canon and effectively insta-rewriting the way a plethora of KQ fans perceive the series history in the minds. That would be an incredibly arrogant thing to do, in my opinion, and honestly, I feel no third party developer has the authority to make those kinds of changes to the official product line - lest they incur the wrath of the fans. Suffice it to say, should we ever be in such a position to officially license Sierra IP, I assure you we'd take every measure to make it canonical through and through.