They're in control of the license from the very start. Anyone who doesn't want that doesn't need to use a license that is so open.

I like most others' careers has been deeply enriched by open source, but I find it hard to have sympathy for anyone releasing under a very open license and then pulling a pikachu face when their project is used within the boundaries of how it is offered.

This same discussion has previously devolved to 'well projects with non-liberal licenses don't tend to get traction', the answer to which is there's a false assumption here that every oss project should trend towards adoption. That should never be the primary goal and is one of the main pillars of why the entire ecosystem is becoming dysfunctional.

Yes. Every company who needs changes in a FOSS project should fork it. Freedom is the freedom to fork, it's the whole point.

As I understood, this is how apache httpd started. NCSA had publicly released httpd, and people wrote all kinds of patches for it. After a while, someone made the effort to combine and organize all these patches, creating what he called a patchy httpd, hence the name apache httpd.