I'm sympathetic to wanting a more "copyleft" or "AGPL like" open hardware licence, even the CERN-OHL-S could be improved, but none of those points advocate that.
You can benefit from our innovation but only if it's in addition to your own innovation.
I kind of like that because unlike patents which stifle innovation, it encourages acceleration of innovation.
The main alternative regime seems to be industrial secrets, are they less stifling?
Then of course there is the option of embracing open source across industry by recognizing as a culture that widespread innovation grows the economy faster than restricted innovation.
Either way, bringing back advertising clauses is a bad idea.
What it should be encouraging is the formation of new companies whose only product is the clone; they don't have the product development overhead when they're setting out their stall. Those companies can then use the cloned design as a cashflow springboard for their own designs as a second phase. There is nothing wrong with that as a business model.
However, that's not what we see. What we see is clones being denigrated as valueless rip-offs, so people who might otherwise get into business by that route are dissuaded from doing so.
That attitude is absolutely reinforced by blog posts like this. Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.