1. The "hard" position - if you don't want "permissive" don't release it as open source is very "hard" and it does fly against what is a clear and growing view that whatever open source "truly" means, it's not supposed to mean exploitation of others work for free by large corporate entities. (who weirdly also are involved in finding a lot of development)
2. The "soft" position (this builds a community, which is the major benefit) also ends up allowing for exploitation.
3. the term "exploitation" is biased in the debate and shows where I sit. But using others work without payment and with no clear intention of keeping to the intention of the license they provided seems a good choice. FOSS found a loophole in the law and made a whole new means of making the law support community and individual rights - that the payment you make to me is to forward restrict your rights. If you can get out of that obligation have I had any payment?
4. There are two options going forward if we want to put that obligation back / create the utopia we are vaguely dreaming of
- Force a chnage in the interpretation of the current license - something like GPLv2 really means GPLv3.
- chnage the license (going forward) - ie GPLv4000
But both are fraught with problems.
In the end we are looking for a non-governmental solution to a problem that governments are clearly designed for - reallocating wealth according to human and social notions of fairness and / or most appropriate use of resources when the market fails to do it.
We pay scientists who will mostly release open source work, the question then becomes why not coders and then which coders.
That does not seem a good solution - so perhaps it's government action to re-open the market in FOSS?