There's zero chance of copyright reform either (copyright has also ossified itself through international treaty), so as long as we're discussing "what ought to

There's zero chance of copyright reform either (copyright has also ossified itself through international treaty), so as long as we're discussing "what ought to be", it's worth pointing out that it wouldn't be that crazy to require source code availability as a consumer protection regulation. It's essentially analogous to requiring manufacturers make their service manuals generally available. In fact the whole free software movement was kicked off in response to printer manufacturers making their products impossible to fix, which is still a problem. And fundamentally, it's a right-to-repair issue. The FOSS movement predates all of those companies, and Microsoft was actively hostile toward it for a long time. GNU/Linux, BSD, GNOME, KDE, postgresql, etc. would still be here without them. Plenty of FOSS development could be done as a synergy with other products; e.g. Intel has a good history of this. With adequate consumer protection, all software could be this way (things like games could have copyright on the artistic assets. See e.g. id software). And in a world where all software is FOSS, it would still be a multi trillion dollar industry (perhaps with more of a professional services model) because software automation is simply too valuable not to be created. Anyway, the point is that copyleft is a (well done) hack on the legal system. It's meant to be a practical solution while we advocate to fix the law. It's not an end in itself.