Needing permission to talk to a fired GM/HC is something that should change. I bet it'd be granted in pretty much all cases but it just makes no sense since that person is no longer employed by a team. It'd be like needing a team's permission to negotiate with a player they just bought out. At least they stopped that foolishness from a few years back where you had to give compensation to hire a GM/HC who was fired but still getting paid.
I've never understood why that's so looked down upon. A contract is a contract, whether it's a player, coach, GM, or the anthem singer. If they don't want the team to enact a certain amount of control on that person's employment elsewhere then they should not accept the free money they're getting for sitting at home.
You use things like draft picks to improve your team. I don't see any difference whatsoever between flipping a pick for a player or using the same thing to hire a new head coach. Both have similar impacts, and in fact the latter has the potential for a far greater impact on a team's fortunes. Lacroix played hardball with Burke and the Canucks when they wanted to hire Marc Crawford and had to pay a price to do so, I don't see the issue with that.
Similarly, what's the big deal of the Flyers have to ask the Hawks for permission to talk to someone who's still on the payroll (and in Q's case, a significant amount of it)? It's in Chicago's best interest for someone to come in and hire him so they're no longer on the hook for said contract. It'd be no different than if Philly came in and asked for permission to speak to an active member of the coaching staff or front office for a position.