Yes it is interesting, the post states both Danese and many engineers, promoted GPL. But the Sun management was not going to use GPLv2, despite it being availa

Yes it is interesting, the post states both Danese and many engineers, promoted GPL. But the Sun management was not going to use GPLv2, despite it being available, and according Danese they management was hoping for GPLv3 to be released which would be GPLv2 incompatible (since Linux is GPLv2 ONLY) but it was taking too much time. And in the very post you linked, he (Phipps) lists GPLv3, not GPLv2 as an alternative for licencing, gee. This ties in with what he said in the Debconf video where Danese spoke about the deliberate GPLv2 incompability, he says later in the video (after Danese has spoken) that "I actually disagree with Danese to some degree", where he states that Sun's management wanted something copyleft, while stating that the engineers had a strong BSD preference (somewhat at odds with what he wrote in what you linked), and that waiting for GPLv3 to be finalized or be allowed by Sun legal to release under the unfinished GPLv3 licence would have taken years and probably involved mass resignations. Again, GPLv2 was available at this point, along with a lot of other GPLv2 compatible licences, yet GPLv2 or any compatible licence was never on the table, instead the question was to either wait for GPLv3 (which would not be compatible with Linux GPLv2 ONLY) or draft a new licence, one which as it turns out was GPLv2 incompatible and thus Linux incompatible, go figure! Now from a business standpoint I can't blame Sun for this choice, they were fighting an uphill battle against Linux as it was, and letting their crown-jewels such as ZFS, DTrace be incorporated in to the Linux kernel would hardly have made it easier for them to compete. As for Phipps statements, at this time he was Sun's 'open source chief officer', a job which obviously included mending bridges with the FOSS community which had been burned by Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz who was attacking GPL as something which allowed the US to 'pillage developing countries of intellectual property' amongst other things. Of course that was just desperation on his part as the attack was not actually leveraged at GPL itself but rather the GPL licenced Linux kernel against which Solaris was losing market, further illustrated by Sun later releasing Java under GPL.