In the long term, these companies fails.
Big companies spend a lot of resources and money to be license compliant. One way to make sure that the company follow OSS licenses is to have a process for how to contribute. The person posted the issue has not been through that processes for this specific project and hence can not contribute.
Either the reporter is reporting the issue because of something they’re doing in their own time, in which case there really is no reason for the company to be involved at all (despite widespread american insanity on the subject), or it’s something they’re doing in a company context in which case they “can’t contribute” to something the company is already using which frankly makes no sense either, if the license was an issue the company could not use the software in the first place.
So the only context seems to be the usual (related to §1) “the company owns your entire life 24/7 for the entirety of your employment duration and beyond without compensating you for any of it” nonsense.
As an example, if I write and publish a complete program or library under GPL (or any other licence), then that doesn't stop me from selling the same thing under a proprietary licence. Qt is a classic example of this. Similarly, if I make a small contribution to a library under GPL, or any other licence, then that doesn't stop me from re-licensing my small chunk of code however I like, or reusing it internally under non-GPL terms - because it's mine!
The exception to this is those few projects that require you to actually assign copyright. Most notably this includes the FSF (except GCC as of a couple of months ago), their reasoning being that this makes it easier for them to litigate against violaters of the GPL, because only the copyright owners can sue.
In my experience this feedback loop is too slow to force management to make a policy change.
At some point I the future they will be chest deep in maintenance cost. At that point they are just going to redo their whole existing stack because it’s cheaper and easier than fixing the current stack.
I believe to sustain any foundation backed or non profit opensource project, you need a healthy community. A community is formed when the builders are appreciated for their efforts. Appreciation could be healthy donations or other people believing and joining their mission by contributing code.
And usually nobody has run that by legal, it’s just a way for managers to go “nope”.
If someone wants to only take and not give that’s fine too. However, if they don’t want to give, they should not expect help. But they are still free to open issues about it. After all it may be something that someone else wants to do.
But as for the company that the guy works for. I would suggest that if they don’t want to contribute themselves, but they really need the problem solved, hire an external contractor to fix it and have him/her submit the patch. I suggest this because the alternative is for them to maintain a set of patches internally and that will only serve to hold them back because either it will take away time from focusing on their own product, or it will mean that no one ever updates the software they run so they are stuck with an old version that doesn’t get security fixes nor new features. So yeah.
Which "we"?!? The thing that differentiates the Apache and BSD-family licenses from the GPL that you can improve the source code for yourself, and not share your improvements. There is no "together".
It's like the old quip about keeping an open mind: "But not so open that your brains fall out". Sure, they're "even more open" than the GPL -- too "open" to preserve everyone's freedom, which is what the whole idea was about. Your definition of "value" serves fundamentally anti-freedom values.
Those of us that value contributing where and when it makes sense to us.
For example, I have submitted a trivial patch to one of the tools in FreeBSD. And it is now part of a base install of FreeBSD, which means that when I install FreeBSD from official media, my patch is already included “free of charge” – that is, I don’t have to apply the patch myself on top of the official sources, nor to maintain a separate build of the tool in question. I benefit, and other users benefit.
Likewise I have some software on GitHub that I have released under the terms of the ISC license. Others may submit pull-requests, and if their patch is in line with my goals for the software, or if does not burden me overly much to maintain my software with those changes merged, I will merge the patches. The people that submitted the changes benefit and I benefit.
Meanwhile, sometimes I may want to modify a piece of software and not share the change. Being free to choose whether or not to share my changes benefits me. Likewise, me not forcing others to share their changes to software that I release under the terms of the ISC license has the potential to benefit other people.
The contractual blanket bans usually say “cannot [do anything] without prior written permission” or something. It’s a big difference between “hey do you mind if I write some software that our competitors can use too, and maybe include some of our own secret sauce”, and “software we use has a bug, can I fix it for myself at source”.
