My understanding of Full Disclosure is that researchers publish the vulnerability (and potentially exploit) publicly without coordinating with the software vendor. This contrasts with Coordinated Disclosure (sometimes "Responsible disclosure" in corporate propaganda) or No Disclosure (and potentially e.g. selling the exploit).

I admittedly used disclosure in a bit different sense for companies in that companies typically don't give out any (truthful) information they have if they aren't required by law. And they lie when profitable.

The symmetric action from a researcher is to sell the exploit to the highest bidder. Of course if the researcher wants to do other disclosures, that's fine too. But what I don't like is the double standard that researchers are scolded for being "unethical" but companies, by design, not caring about ethics at all is just fine and the way it should be.