"The camp forming around GPL v2 wants to allow proprietary software components to operate within an open environment"
NOT correct, it is about the DRM statement within GPLv3, where people as linus see problems. Also linux is coded for by numerous people. Upgrading the license would require all these people to agree or remove their contributions. needless to say this would be hard to do..
it is perfectly possible to run proprietary stuff 'on' or around linux and distribute your closed stuff without providing source as long as you don't use GPL code in your source or 'hook' into it.
developers dissaprove closed stuff within linux for several reasons concerned with security and upgradebility.
Also, about the BSD style license. You proclaim this to be the probable winner. I don see this. Yes it allows proprietary firms to include and they do. However they give very little (if any) back to the developing communities. whereas with the GPL, people are required to release their changes to the code. Now which universe works out better ?