They're saying it needs retconning because if it isn't retconned, the books are basically stuck in staying before December 31st, 2387 unless Bad Robot changes their mind, as Treklit literally isn't allowed to reference the Abramsverse, and literally isn't allowed to go against established canon. Either that or just no one mentions Romulus again.
I think that's making a lot of unsupported assumptions. For one thing, the DS9 relaunch (and the
SCE series running alongside it) took seven years to cover a year of story time. For another thing, there are
already plenty of novels that don't mention Spock or Romulus. It's a big universe, after all. Also, as I've mentioned before, just because you don't have a license to tell stories specifically
about an idea, that doesn't necessarily mean you're forbidden even to
mention it. I have seen a few references to ideas from the Abramsverse in the novels; I know I saw transwarp beaming referenced by name in a recent one (maybe
The Missing?), and I featured bald, tattooed Romulans in
Typhon Pact: The Struggle Within. So there are ways to acknowledge a thing peripherally even if you can't use it as the focus of a story.
And licensing agreements change. Marvel didn't have the rights to anything but TMP in their first Trek comic (and yet they managed to sneak TOS references into nearly every issue), but they had the rights to everything in their second Trek comic. So the current status quo isn't necessarily eternal.
Though I'd think that even violating the second part and just saying "that didn't happen" would still be breaking the first, the same way TGTMD is still referencing TATV even without the framing story. An explicit retcon is still a reference, it's just not as direct of one. If you say "Romulus isn't destroyed *wink*", you're still referencing the 2009 movie in a sense.
More to the point, just because you're not licensed to use a part of canon, that does not mean you're allowed to contradict it. I discussed this already in post #50 of the thread.