First, I don't like the MIT license because it allows license changes without additional code contributions. The BSD license doesn't grant sublicensing rights

First, I don't like the MIT license because it allows license changes without additional code contributions. The BSD license doesn't grant sublicensing rights and therefore only allows restrictions to be placed on new code contributions. Also IMO the only way to read the BSD license and GPL v3 as compatible are to read section 7(b) in the GPL v3 as allowing additional copyright license/permission grants beyond the additional permissions section elsewhere. I.e. one must read 7(b) as allowing a legal notice that the author grants rights in a non-removable fashion from his or her contributions (narrowly scoped). Otherwise, the BSD license is GPLv3-incompatible. If freedom is economically valuable, then folks who proprietize BSD-licensed software can never outrun the community over the long-run, and it also follows that, equally in the long run, more restrictive licenses will have to fall in favor of less restrictive ones.