Permissive licenses, community, and copyleft

So this anti-permissive rhetoric isn't in any way driven by any ambition by HP to commoditize software, by blocking any opportunity for proprietary extensions from competitors, on select markets to shift customer demand towards their own hardware on those markets?

HP, please let me know when you have licensed Integrated Lights Out under the GPL. Oh, and the firmware for all those fine printers too. I've always wanted to fix the bug that stops my printer from using all of the ink in the cartridge. Go go GPL!

Mr Flink also manage to conflates the Apache 2.0 license with the organizations that prefer to use said license. The Apache software foundation, the creator of the ASL, may appear to have a emphasis on bureaucracy. But that is a good thing for user of software produced by Apache projects. It means that we can be confident of the authenticity of source code and that it is intentionally and rightfully submitted to the project. It would of course not have mattered if the Apache projects instead were copyleft. It is the organization that guarantees proper copyright control, and that's valuable in itself, regardless of license.

Communities are build by people. The license, whether permissive or copyleft doesn't matter. Corporations are, probably out of necessity, more explicitly requiring copyright control of software they use when compared to individuals. Obviously that makes it easier for corporations to engage with open source projects that are backed by a clear organizational structure, such as the ASF.

There are many wonderful communities under the umbrella of the ASF. People who are there because of their day job engage with people who are there because of the fun of it. And some of the day job folks may even be there because of the project's permissive license, not despite of it.