Not really - I'd say he's showing concern with the execution rather than the idea of enforcement. The other thing I got is he hates GPLv3 (but not v2), and also is not a fan of the BSD license:
> My only real concern about a BSD license is it lets for-profit corporations hire your developers away to work on a proprietary fork (as I ranted about here and here). This is why BSD the operating system has never amounted to anything: Sun looted them in 1982, BSDi looted them in 1989, and Apple looted them a third time around 1997 and never stopped stopped. (None of which explain why Free, Open, and Net are separate projects.)
> But honestly, I think the FSF has now made the GPL more of a liability than an asset. I've spoken on panels defending the GPL but GPLv3 was a career limiting move. LLVM and PCC and Android are all organizations that were fine with GPLv2, until it got painted with the same brush as GPLv3 and the contamination spread to cloud the old thing
The principles SFC operates their GPL compliance efforts under are eminently reasonable. They aren't going to sue anyone into the ground, they just want GPL compliance and reasonable coverage of legal expenses.
> My only real concern about a BSD license is it lets for-profit corporations hire your developers away to work on a proprietary fork (as I ranted about here and here). This is why BSD the operating system has never amounted to anything: Sun looted them in 1982, BSDi looted them in 1989, and Apple looted them a third time around 1997 and never stopped stopped. (None of which explain why Free, Open, and Net are separate projects.)
> But honestly, I think the FSF has now made the GPL more of a liability than an asset. I've spoken on panels defending the GPL but GPLv3 was a career limiting move. LLVM and PCC and Android are all organizations that were fine with GPLv2, until it got painted with the same brush as GPLv3 and the contamination spread to cloud the old thing