I think his view that the most important part of the license is that it makes the software better is shortsighted. If linux gets used in 95% of all capable hardware everywhere, but it's all on locked down hardware by a few companies, what is the point of being open source? Effectively, it's proprietary software which is co-owned by a group of corporations, and the open source is primarily a training program for future employees and phds. Users being able to choose what software they want to run on their devices does matter. Well, he did say it was a fine license (if you care about that). Also, I don't think he gives enough credit to fsf, as almost all other free/open source licenses automatically and always allow later versions, but gpl doesn't. Creative commons is one big example.