The second interpretation is nonsense of course. If you want GPL-like obligations, use the GPL.

A license is what it says in the license, nothing extra. It's a legal document not a moral guideline.

I do think it's a very good idea to always use the GPL (even though commercially minded types always get their panties in a bunch about the GPL) for any user-facing software, to force everybody to 'play fair and share'. The only reason to use MIT imho is for a library implementing some sort of standard where you want that standard used by as many people as possible.

I don't understand people who use MIT for their project and then complain some commercial firm takes their contributions and runs with it. If that's not what you want don't use that license.

Apart from license terms and moral obligations being a bad mix, companies don't have morals. Don't get me wrong, I think they should have! But they don't.

People have morals. Groups of people (a company, a country , a mob) not so much. Sadly.