Just to be awkward: I'm yet to see a PDF that has an infinite number of pages. Any time that the writer spends generating a workaround for something in the PHB but not the SRD is time they're not spending on other things. I'd rather that be minimised as far as possible.
The "infinite number of pages" argument strikes me as being disingenuous. It doesn't
need to be infinite; rather, it's able to be as long as it needs to be to do whatever the author wants it to do. The idea of "X pages that are spent re-hashing material we've already seen is X pages that are wasted" is completely false, since that presumes that those pages would have been spent on something else, when in fact it simply means those pages wouldn't have existed to begin with.
Likewise, the "time wasted that could have been spent elsewhere" argument is similarly unmoving; it carries the implication that the time that's being spent on that would have been spent on a similar endeavor, when it could have come from anything, be it sleeping, eating, or watching TV. As such, there's no real merit to that line of thinking.
Quite frankly, if the writer feels what they're doing is worth spending their time on, nobody else gets to critique their decision.
There is however, both a finite amount of time available to read and a finite brain capacity to parse and verify that this section is both already known and exactly the same as a previous added segment from all the other optional material grokked..
Which is a good argument for why it's better for somebody to create more mechanically-identical OGC that can be used when someone wants a PHB stand-in, rather than having to create an almost-but-not-quite-the-same facsimile over and over.
The act of creation always fills some need, if only in the creator. If the creator hopes for other people to appreciate and use and even pay for their creation, it will need to meet their needs, too. (This isn't always a concern, but it isn't an unreasonable assumption when talking about the OGL and the SRD)
This is patently false; you don't get to tell someone else that their creation has filled a "need" of theirs. Only they get to say that, and if they don't believe that it was needed or necessary on their part, then you're nobody to tell them otherwise. As you said, that's not always a concern, and moreover is an assumption.
It's also true that re-printing the wood elf verbatim isn't really much of an act of creation. You're not making anything new with that reprint.
That's not true in any way, shape, or form. Creating something is under no particular impetus that the creation be new. Plenty of people make things (e.g. furniture, tools, cars, etc.) that already exist; that doesn't make it any less an act of creation.
Time and money and effort are all limited. Our lives are limited, our attention spans are limited.
As noted above, this particular argument is a sop. If someone else sees a particular creative endeavor as being worthwhile, you don't get to say "well I'd prefer that you need not bother doing that."
If you want to truck in pure hypothetical ideology, you don't need advice. No one can physically stop you from publishing a verbatim copy of the PHB and selling it on your website for $2,000 a pop.
Using ridiculous examples (e.g. "physically stop you," "$2,000 a pop") doesn't make the point any less true.
There are just consequences for that action.
One of those consequences is likely to be that not many people buy your PHB.
So what? That might matter to some people, but there are plenty of others for whom making something and putting it out there is enough, with the money being a pleasant but wholly unnecessary bonus.
Talking about practical consequences is nothing more than moving the goalposts.
