I use to share that view, but I'm no longer sure if this is true. Do you have evidence you could point to, or is this a instinctual opinion? I don't have evidence going the other way, but I don't think it's a clear cut truth.
The Sony PlayStation is based on a fork of FreeBSD. It is entirely proprietary. Lots of different embedded device also use BSD because they are permissively licensed. Anybody who gets such a device is screwed because they cannot modify it or even know what the device is doing. This is true for the majority of IoT devices (which is a serious problem going forward). To be fair, there aren't nearly enough GPL enforcement lawsuits as there should be (which is why I donate to the Software Freedom Conservancy) so it's not like the copyleft side is /much/ better but at least copyleft does help achieve the goal.
In addition, GPLv3's anti-tivoisation clauses are quite unique in the free software world and are specifically written to ensure that users have freedom over devices that try to undermine the spirit of the GPL. You won't find any permissive license that has such protections for your freedom (because it's not enforceable without making the license copyleft).
This argument doesn't hold for standards, generally. Because what matters for a standard is adoption. Sure, you're making it possible to have a proprietary fork of your reference implementation but at least users can be sure that the specification is actually used (and if the spec is Apache licensed then you're safe from patents which is something that can't be said of proprietary specifications). But Apache OpenOffice isn't a standard, so this is not really all that relevant.
In general, the people who champion for permissive licenses are not the same people who care at all about replacing proprietary software or "users living in freedom." The purpose of using a permissive license is indeed to aid proprietary software development, not hinder it - and I believe Apache OO was relicensed in this manner for the explicit purpose of being an upstream for proprietary end-user applications, rather than as an end-user application itself.
There are places for permissive FOSS licenses, weak copyleft and strong copyleft. If you don't agree with that (and even the FSF does!), then no matter what, any discussion or debate is moot.
The two examples the FSF agrees with:
1. Base reference implementations of open standards. 2. Small snippets of code (smaller than 300 lines).
AOO is neither of these. Yes, I agree that permissive licenses have a use, but saying that "this $largeproject is under a permissive license!" as a positive thing doesn't sit right with me". It's like saying in a work report "amazing! we haven't had any murders in the office in the past 3 weeks." It's a correct statement, but the implication is that permissively licensing it has a benefit _for users_. This is simply untrue, as AOO is neither a base implementation of a standard nor is it a small piece of software.
Why is "like $X but under a permissive license" something that people champion for? Are we not all in the same boat, trying to replace proprietary software so users can live in freedom? Permissive licenses simply do not help achieve this goal as effectively as copyleft licenses do.
If you want to argue that AOO will be technically superior or whatever, that's fine. But championing "we also allow proprietary forks" is not helping any users of free software.