I agree, but I somehow doubt that will ever happen. Partly because MS is motivated to muddy the waters and shift norms towards allowing more of this kind of license-defying copying (because they make money from a product that does just that), and partly because the market for the most part doesn't think clearly about these issues. Many commenters here seem really fuzzy on the fact that nearly all code is, with or without an explicit statement as such, copyrighted (thanks, Berne convention), that that copyright (with or without documentation) is owned by someone, and that it is licensing which grants use of copyrighted work under specific circumstances. So as you say, the real problem is losing information about the license.
I'm grateful that the author of some LGPL'd code has triggered this discussion, since its a more consequential license w.r.t. code reuse.