(L0pht obviously had a side in the full disclosure "debate", but they didn't have much to do with the outcome of the debate. I don't recall anyone serious taking the opposing side on full disclosure, by the way; that outcome was a foregone conclusion.)
Can you expand on this? I'd say the outcome has been the opposite of the foregone conclusion, unless I've misinterpreted you. FD seemed like the "of course it's this way" option (unless I misremember), but that's not where we are today.
What I'd say is that today, few people bat an eyelash if a researcher does a detailed writeup of how a vulnerability and its exploit work (for instance, look at the Google security blog). That wasn't true in the 1990s: if a company of Google's stature had published something like that, it would have been controversial and newsworthy.
I'd suggest FD prevailed because it's relatively safe to publish vulnerabilities today; in fact, it's a career booster.
During the FD debate, there were "important" people suggesting that all vulnerabilities be routed to organizations like CERT, which had as a charter the concealment of vulnerability details.