I think it's doing fine as it is within the limits of the law. If you want more you're going to have to either operate outside of the law or you're going to have to have the laws changed. But within the law the Free Software Movement used all of the available space, to the point that almost every other license out there is less strict than theirs.
What needs to be updated is the the knowledge of the users and of the programmers. But we've been co-opted as an industry for the most part by very large bags of money and a service oriented eco-system is the capitalist response to the free software movement.
Doing an end run around that is hard to enforce (see the various licenses that address this loophole directly) without having the backing of a regulator. I see this as a simple swing of the pendulum, which it has done several times in the past regarding centralization and decentralization of computers: single machines -> single machines with terminals and time sharing -> mini computers with terminals -> microcomputers -> networked micro computers -> networked micro computers using peer-to-peer services -> networked micro computers with access to services -> special purpose computers (terminals!) with access to services. So if we want to do away with these we'd need to focus on the technical implementation of federated services that do not require central services at all. One thing you could advocate for is to restore peer-to-peer capabilities of residential internet but the fear of the hacker card will be played to counter that one. But there is also still pressure to push the pendulum one more step to the right: identified access to the internet and without that no service. This may well happen, I would expect a country like the UK or Australia to be first to implement this.
Also note that there is no actual technical driving force behind the pendulum, it doesn't have to swing at all, it could just as easily get stuck. The important common factor between all of the above was that someone (or lots of someones) made a lot of money by driving the swing.
What needs to be updated is the the knowledge of the users and of the programmers. But we've been co-opted as an industry for the most part by very large bags of money and a service oriented eco-system is the capitalist response to the free software movement.
Doing an end run around that is hard to enforce (see the various licenses that address this loophole directly) without having the backing of a regulator. I see this as a simple swing of the pendulum, which it has done several times in the past regarding centralization and decentralization of computers: single machines -> single machines with terminals and time sharing -> mini computers with terminals -> microcomputers -> networked micro computers -> networked micro computers using peer-to-peer services -> networked micro computers with access to services -> special purpose computers (terminals!) with access to services. So if we want to do away with these we'd need to focus on the technical implementation of federated services that do not require central services at all. One thing you could advocate for is to restore peer-to-peer capabilities of residential internet but the fear of the hacker card will be played to counter that one. But there is also still pressure to push the pendulum one more step to the right: identified access to the internet and without that no service. This may well happen, I would expect a country like the UK or Australia to be first to implement this.
Also note that there is no actual technical driving force behind the pendulum, it doesn't have to swing at all, it could just as easily get stuck. The important common factor between all of the above was that someone (or lots of someones) made a lot of money by driving the swing.