> I wish more Open Source community players to stand up for their interest more strongly.
Which IMO means using copyleft licenses. Not necessarily strong copyleft: I mostly use MPLv2 and EUPL, that I find let people use my code in their proprietary software, but forces them to distribute the changes they make to my code. The best of both worlds.
> the only thing licenses help with is discouraging people from using it in the first place
It may discourage people from using it, often because it's easier to go with a permissive alternative. But if there was no permissive license at all and only weak copyleft, then I am absolutely convinced that people would use them just fine.
One important thing I believe you miss is that weak copyleft gives developers leverage to contribute back during their work time. If my company needs this particular library which is MPLv2, then as a developer, internally I can tell my managers that I must upstream my changes. Whereas if it is permissive, then I can try to ask the permission to upstream my changes, and obviously that will be refused (because it takes time which costs money).
By using a reciprocal license, you give developers a legal reason to contribute back during their work time. Ain't that amazing?
the people who have the ability to make changes are a mostly disjoint set from the entitled ones who complain loudly in your issue tracker.
the only thing licenses help with is discouraging people from using it in the first place