Software isn't sentient...

I think lutchann's characterization is more accurate. The piece is just viewing things from a
different perspective - the perspective of a lawyer providing advice to companies that might
intend to use OSS. He's saying pretty much what OSS people say: "You need to be aware, in
detail, of what the license requires before you use OSS."

Is that FUD? Only if you assume that everyone is prepared to share their value-add code
openly, as people coming from the OSS side typically do. If you're someone, or a company,
concerned about being able to keep your proprietary code proprietary, you DO need to be
completely clear about the licenses on the software you use and to have a healthy respect for
what courts might decide if a developer claims that you have violated a license.

The article points at issues that were the core of discussion in the GPLv3 drafting,
identifying exactly the barriers that the drafters meant to erect. How can pointing out those
issues be FUD? 

Nothing in the article says "Oh my God, avoid the use of OSS or you could be risking
everything." It says to be aware of potential issues and "make sure that [your] use of open
source software is ready for the challenge", which seems like a pretty reasonable warning.