If people want to create and promote their own utopian models that's their business. Personally I'd want nothing to do with that, and it definitely should not be called open source, just like any restrictive license.
On another note, a transaction is a meeting of the minds. When most people release open source software they want nothing in return and are owed nothing. That's how I feel about it. People who think they are owed something are like beggars who do miming or some such in the street and call it work. Nobody asked for it, some find it interesting and you might be able to guilt someone into paying but they didn't hire you and don't owe you anything. You can just not do it, it's only a job if you're explicitly hired.
To me, open source isn't a transaction (even one with "nothing owed" as it were), as much as a community. What I get from participating in open source is to be a part of that community. You just don't get the same interactions working on a closed-source, proprietary code, no matter how deep and rigorous your process is. Ironically, I have stronger bonds with some of my collaborators at other companies/institutions than I do in my own, and that's all thanks to open source.
The fact that some of these open source communities happen to have built world-class software that is used by FAANGs and Fortune 500 companies is cool and a testament to the power of this process. But it's also sort of tangential. And I think we're missing something when we reduce open source down to the licenses and code transfer, as if that's all it is.