It may be a cultural difference. As I recall, Landley's examples are from the East (Sony, for example). Intellectual property as a sacred institution is somewha

It may be a cultural difference. As I recall, Landley's examples are from the East (Sony, for example). Intellectual property as a sacred institution is somewhat less established there than in the West. The point is that users who would give credit will do so anyway (without needing a gun held to their heads), and those who won't, won't. A license only changes things by giving the recourse to sue in the latter case. If you aren't going to sue anyway (as Landley isn't, anymore), then there's not much point to using a relatively restrictive license. I recommend watching the Landley talk. He used to be among the most rabid copyleft advocates, before the BusyBox fiasco and GPLv3.