This is why I try to license my personal stuff gpl or agpl still. At the end of the day, I don't want people using it or modifying it that don't release the source, even if it is less used as a result.
The article brings up two camps - gpl vs mit / bsd, and while I use the gpl now on the precedent that the copyright situation is so bad it needs some counter-pressure wherever I can place it, I hope in the long term the outcome is the abolition of copyright entirely. But I put stuff under GPL now because the ultra-restrictive copyrights on proprietary software and their license terms harm creativity so much using the system to force freedom is better than ignoring the problem entirely. To me, at least.
The goal of the GPL is user freedom, in an age when the copyright holder / developer (not always the same person) holds all the cards.