I also liked the article and its conclusions, but I still have not understood one fundamental point: What is wrong with GPLv2?
The license will work as a license, going forward, certainly equivalent to or better than other open source type licenses. For example, the Linux kernel works very well under GPLv2, and with a sufficient community out there, does not seem likely to die soon ....
The worst that _could_ happen is that Oracle could buy the entire "developer community" and pay them to shut down the GPLv2 development process. Short of that, the product is out there, GPLv2, and can be used and developed under that license. I fail to see how a change to an Apache style license or any other one would change this. Certainly I fail to see why the license would impact the antitrust aspect of the case.
So any good explanation of that would be helpful. How exactly would a change from GPLv2 to anything else alleviate the fact that Oracle could simply pay everyone under their control to not develop anymore?