I stand by FSF and GPL, these have produced many excellent software --- emacs, GNU and gcc. Maybe most programers can not deny GPL software as long as there is gcc. gcc! Oh, gcc! I still don't remunerate gcc's achievement enough. So I keep contributing something to OSS projects taking GPL/LGPL. If there are GPL 3D engine and zlib 3D engine, I make a patch for GPL 3D engine.
But, I can not agree the concept of GPL. So XOOPS Cube took modified BSD license. I think that modified BSD license is freedom than GPL, because modified BSD is freedom and doesn't force the freedom to others. GPL is too strong.
Some people criticize XOOPS Cube for taking another license. But, I don't think that they, GPL followers agree GPL perfectly. They follow GPL different from GPL and use 100% of the loophole. Yes, web applications can escape from GPL, through the loophole. In the client/server model, end users don't use the executable binary of the application, so web applications don't have the duty to publish their source code that they modified for their site. Even if you visit to the site built by customizing GPL web application, you don't obtain modified source code.
But, GPL v3 will fix the loophole. So, site owners will be under the duty to publish source code of their customized site.
Nonsense? That is just GPL! I published many code under GPL/LGPL, and contribute many code to GPL/LGPL projects. I wrote a game and published source code. And, I agreed that XOOPS Cube decided not to take GPL. I thought that web applications under GPL don't observe the essence of GPL.
I expect that most GPL web application projects will not take GPL v3 as well as us. Most people who don't have experience about the essence of GPL will not want to exercise the true ability of GPL.
But, I will contribute something to the projects that will take GPL v3.