Mr Stallman, you have completely missed the whole point of what Tim O'Reilly has said. What you are instead suggesting is just as bad and just as restrictive as any proprietry license.
If I write a piece of software, it is my effort and time that went in to creating that project and seeing it through. If I then decide I'd rather receive some form or remuneration (not just money), and release the package under a license that requires that the user pays me a fee and agrees to not distribute the package to others, then that is my choice.
If, by the same token, I feel that the package is something I'd like to share and get proactive feedback on, get others to help build and allow them to fit it into their environment exactly, then I'd be more likely to use a BSD-style license.
GPL destroys the rights of the individual developer or developer house to write software the way they want to right it and do with that software as they want to. Under the GPL, all software becomes the property of everyone and no one has a claim to that software.
The DMCA is one extreme, the GPL is the opposite extreme. Thats how I've grown to see it over the past 2 or 3 years that I've actually bothered taking notice of what I'm using.
I use GPL software because the license says I can. I write software under the BSD-style license because I'm able to keep the project as mine, and not give up all my rights to the over-reaching RMS.
RMS, you have gradually been over extending your reach into the Opensource and Free software worlds. You have been given honorary place amoung the community because for a long time, you did good. You were a great spokesman and that will never be forgotten. However, your actions lately have led me to ignore you and no longer respect you. You force projects to follow your vision and threaten them. For that reason, I will never submit any of my works to the GNU projects, or donate towards the FSF.