Of course, but they can't just copy&paste their favorite files from the linux kernel sources and call it FancyOs without releasing the sources to that.
I think you got my point, I don't really see the benefit in arguing semantics.
Sorry, that might have been a bad choice of words on my part (not a native speaker). I agree that this process would be simple and easy in an ideal world but we can't reasonably expect every developer to think about price structures for their small OSS projects. So this will most likely involve at least some sort of talking between both parties.
Ultimately the company plans to make mony off of the OSS project, surely those two hours won't make the whole business case invalid.
I feel like this isn't really framing the issue fairly. The issue isn't that Sony couldn't use GPL code, there is no law preventing them from doing so, they just choose not to (for a variety of reasons, I'd imagine). Just as the could contribute to FreeBSD but choose not to.
And OS developers have the choice to prevent Sony (or some other company) from essentially using free labor to make money without any obligation on their side.
I'd guess that most simply don't care as this is really just an issue for the company, not the author.
If the project is licensed with MIT/BSD it still isn't really likely that the company will contribute/donate/whatever.
So I'd argue that companies not wanting to negotiate doesn't really change anything for >90% of OS projects, they would not gain anything with a more permissive license either.