Honestly, I think the best way to promote open source licenses over free software copyleft licenses is to make sure the GPL has obvious, proven teeth. That way

Honestly, I think the best way to promote open source licenses over free software copyleft licenses is to make sure the GPL has obvious, proven teeth. That way, commercial companies that don't want to risk the successful lawsuit and just want to build on existing code will go the MIT/BSD route exclusively; and GPL can remain in the academic and the ideologically-driven free software sector where it's really much more suited. If a company then wants to actually be a free software-based company, more power to them, but there'll be a lot less stumbling into that situation and half-assing the ethics of it like we see now. If nothing else, giving the GPL teeth will force the confrontations and precedents that finally define the boundaries of the copyleft concept and let people make more informed choices.