The article by Bruce Perens, like all pro-GPL writing, is nothing but Orwellian double-speak, constantly talking about freedom but at the same time insisting that freedom means "you must do exactly as I say".
This keeps coming up, and I've never received a proper reply, but maybe this potty mouth anonymous coward will surprise me.
Licensing code under a non-copyleft free license means you are fine with someone taking your code and building a commercial product with it, and never giving it back in any way or form. If you're okay with that, how come you're not okay with someone who does give it back, except in a way you can't use?
Intuitively, GPL ought to be more free than completely closed off no matter where you stand, and yet you're okay with the later but not with the former. Please explain.