[jhall1468]

> I think it's fair to say that people are acknowledging the problem: it's possible for a large company to use the rights offered to them by an open source license to create products that effectively end the financial viability of smaller companies that lead core development of the project.

That's been true since the MIT and Apache license came into existence.

Your third item just reeks of justification. "not-quite pure open source license" is nonsense. This is not an open source license, at its core. The goal here is to prevent use.

So I don't think the third is a valid option when we're discussing "fixing" open source. It's a valid option for protecting a companies revenue stream, but in doing so that company is no longer an "open source company" by definition.