We should work on this more. GPL is starting to die as a basis for seriuos development. First SCO takes off the gloves and declares GPL unenforceable and unconstitutional, then Redhat abandons the desktop publicly and Suse gets bought by Novell, and Szulik announces that Linux desktop is not ready for prime time and won't be for years, and suggests Windows. All within a few days.
The "free software movement" had it coming, after years of being so ideological and ignoring end user problems. A viable model of software development must replace both free software and open source, which are motivated only by a concern of the developers not the users: remaining free to hack anything into unusability. The only way to compete with Microsoft is a better consortium model properly organized without the ideological Cold War of free software vs. open source (which is communism vs. capitalism). At present the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give stuff away free, since MS will happily undercut any other price. What SHOULD be free to the end user is a way to figure out whether they are supporting their own values or not. But no one has a right to features or support, as the death of the GPL world seems to be proving.
Basically, the FSF never did a serious styles of capital analysis on where contributions and users were coming from, why they were motivated, etc., and instead just relied on ideology. Then they got competitors, new licenses, etc., and weren't able to deal with it. They had no rational answers for the various objections made to GPL provisions. They ended up fueling spinoffs that lost the viral license provisions that were the most important things.
Consumerium Software License and any Green Documentation License must really have viral license provisions like GFDL or GPL, but they should shun the Debian definition of free which puts green purposes no more important than those of an arms industry lobby group. Under those rules, no moral purchasing power can be gained. So let's talk about this.