I think the author made some good points worth thinking about, but I would somewhat disagree with the conclusion. Some of the bigger FOSS projects left out of t

I think the author made some good points worth thinking about, but I would somewhat disagree with the conclusion. Some of the bigger FOSS projects left out of the write-up would be Chromium which is BSD+others, and Java is GPL, so it shouldn't be surprising that corporations figured out which license would help them the most and went with that. Likewise, I think people should pick the right license for the job (Something along the lines of BSD/Apache for a system lib, and GPL for user-facing software), and experimentation in this area can only be good. License zero, ethical source, Tidelift, and some license/project proliferation with POSS all seem like they're going in different directions if anywhere, which might also make sense as there is more branching out of FOSS in general. FWIW, I think the 4 freedoms reinforce what end users want, or maybe used to want: compatibility and interoperability. The big companies somehow managed to convince users against having those two things in the name of a few conveniences as the author himself pointed out. Gatekeepers can only be stopped if users reject them, and the GPL isn't so bad a tool for doing exactly that.