What strikes me as utterly non-sense is the perceived "death penalty" of the GPLv2 (and I speak v2, here).
Basically, the reasoning is: "if you do not comply with the terms of the license, you loose your rights to use the software."
I don't know of any other software license, for dealign only with FLOSS), but I can easily imagine that this sentence would equally apply to *any* other license, proprietary, free and open-source alike.
If you break the rules of proprietary licensed software, you are infringing, and you loose the right to use the software.
If you do not retain the copyright notice of a 2-clause BSD licensed software, you are infringing, and you loos the right to use the software.
If you do not provide the source code of a GPL licensed software, you are infringing, and you loose the right to use the software.
So, what makes it *so* special that it is called a "death penalty" when it comes to the GPL, but not when it implies other licenses?
And of course, GPLv3 (in my understanding) is even better than that, because infringers are automatically re-instated if they get into compliance in a given time after the first notification. This is forgiveness for willingness. That's *way* better than any other license!