When WotC tried the OGL change recently there were so many people whose livlihood was threatened and that's a sign of an unhealthy landscape.
I disagree, and this position fails to allow for how ecologies and interdependent systems operate.
The OGL fiasco threatened to be a metaphorical forest fire in the RPG world, yes. And if it was allowed to grow, many would have gotten burned, yes. But forest fires happen in healthy forests. That many would get burned isn't a sign that the forest was unhealthy, but just that it was very large.
In a more balkanized RPG landscape, filled with smaller games and companies, no one game company could threaten the livelihood of as many creators, true. But then that smaller, balkanized RPG landscape wouldn't support so many livelihoods in the first place!
Broadly:
Balkanized landscapes are resistant to single massive disruptions, but they only support small populations. And they are at risk of attrition - the individual small elements cannot threaten each other, but neither can they offer each other support, and if one dies off, there's not much of a tendency for them to regrow.
Large, interdependent systems support very large populations, and are more resistant to that attrition. They can ignore most small disruptions, but generally have some sort of central vulnerability that can massively disrupt them. But even in that failure, they have a larger ability to regrow. Forests come back from fires in ways that separated copses of trees cannot.