Roberto Galoppini reports that GPLv3 has been approved by the OSI Board. This is not a positive step for the FOSS movement.

Consider several reasons why license standardization is important for the FOSS movement- to simplify use, modification and redistribution rights (so that techies don't have to be lawyers), and to manage IT environments where a vast proportion of inputs come from outside the firm. These bases for standardizing FOSS licenses seek to reduce legal uncertainty and transaction costs associated with FOSS. Their goal, ultimately, is to increase FOSS adoption, which GPLv3 is not unsupportive of.

GPLv3 is often regarded as a social contract by its proponents. However, by primarily basing GPLv3 enforcement on arbitrary FOSS community norms, GPLv3 weakens the FOSS movement. GPLv3 reflects the reality that with FOSS, uncertainty comes from within the FOSS community, not from intellectual property nor contract laws.

The emphasis on community enforcement in GPLv3 (which I see as a strategy to compensate for the license's questionable legal enforcement) should be particularly worrisome to commercial entities. A relatively stable environment is important for businesses to make investments and efficiently undertake economic activity. This stability is protected by our political-economy system. By setting aside this framework, and relying on community enforcement, the Free Software Foundation seeks to usurp the free market model that has generated innovation and economic growth, for the purpose of interfering with business practices it does not agree with.

What commercial entities would elect figures from the Free Software Foundation onto their boards? Well, if they sign onto the social contract known as GPLv3, the Free Software Foundation hopes they will do so accidentally.