But the GSL went screamingly far in the opposite direction. In addition to closing off the core of the game, they imposed a bunch of weird and confusing restrictions (you can make up new monster statblocks but you can't use ours as listed!), and gave Wizards the right to yank the license at will. A company that built itself on producing adventures for 4E, the way Paizo did in 3E, could be terminated at the whim of WotC's executive of the week.
Furthermore, it was delivered months late, and in its original version it tried to prohibit producing GSL and OGL content side by side. This was utterly unacceptable to pretty much everybody, so it got sent back for a rewrite, adding more months. By the time Wizards finally came out with a GSL that some of the big-name 3PPs were willing to sign up for, it was too late.
If the GSL had just been "the OGL, but you can't reprint the Player's Handbook any more," things would have been very, very different.
The GSL is essentially a license to produce adventures and some sourcebooks for 4E, and some few companies do so. Most former 3PPs that contributed to the huge success of 3E aren't interested in a license like the GSL and the lack of success it engenders is fairly obvious even without access to the numbers. The amount of time it took to iron out and the fact that WotC could terminate it wouldn't have deterred companies from producing adventures and sourcebooks for 4E using the GSL if those companies thought there was money to be made. With the 3E OGL, there were very few companies at the beginning relative to all that were eventually involved, so the timing isn't as big an issue as you profess. So, too, the restriction that WotC could revoke the GSL means little to someone making an adventure and selling it as the bulk of sales come in the first few months after which the company has moved on to make other things. Certainly, once something has been printed and distributed, there is no provision for WotC to force a company to go out and recollect already sold units. So, again, in the scenario you put forth that restriction would make little difference. There are other concerns with those provisions but they aren't relevant to your points so I'll leave those aside.
And let's be clear, because you seem to be confusing things, the 3.XE Player's Handbooks cannot be reprinted by anyone other than WotC. Phrasing it in the way you do shows a huge lack of understanding of what the OGL allowed (I'll assume this isn't some sort of deliberate attempt to obfuscate what the OGL actually allows).
What anyone could do, whether they want to produce the material or just possess it, was to download the 3.XE SRD, which is the bulk of the mechanics of the game system as expressed in a manner by the designers so as to make those mechanics clear. This seems to have not harmed the sales of actual Player's Handbooks, Dungeon Master's Guides, and Monster Manuals in the least, if the huge success of 3E is anything by which to judge and I'm going to say that it is whether you wish to disagree or not. That would seem to have been the heart of your objection, which really makes most of your argument moot, but there are some other points that should still be addressed.
What some have done with the 3.XE SRD, myself included, is take the SRD and add value to it as a prep tool. My own
SRD 3.5 Revised has been wildly successful for me. It's over 3,500 PDF pages laying out the SRD with hyperlinks and new tables (like spell tables and CR tables) to make it a great electronic resource for gamers using that system. It's been cited by RPGNow as one of the top one hundred products of their ten year run as an online eTailer (out of thousands of products). I'm very proud of that. Because, however, I had read some fringe objections from folks like yourself over time to reformatting the SRD as some sort of afront to the OGL ideal, when I spoke on the phone to Scott Rouse while the GSL was first being considered, I raised the question with him. I was told that it wasn't something that was problematic. This is because while it has been a huge success for me, it wasn't something that WotC wanted to do themselves, it wouldn't have been big enough to be a success for them.
So, to sum up, your arguments seem to be all over the place, misunderstanding the facts of the licensing while simultaneously misattributing problems or restrictions in the GSL to bolster some points you make, as well as refusing to acknowledge sucesses or failures without hard numbers that few other people would believe are necessary to realize what has happened in the market. Some things we know include: 3PP can and do produce adventures and sourcebooks for 4E using the GSL but few find it to be successful enough to do so; The OGL was incredibly success for WotC and 3PP alike during the period in which WotC worked with it; Some 3PP still find working with the OGL to be hugely successful.