Note that they admit that most of the GNU Libraries are LGPL, but now they decided (for reasons not stated there) that it is better to move away from that.
I think this is probably not a great decision from the FSF, in many ways (including ignoring the author of the GPL software trying to use the library). But I think there are a couple things that bother me a bit about Michael's article:
* This is clearly an opinion from him, so he should probably have an Editorial section. Since this reads like "News", but it's basically a long rant reiterating a main point, over and over.
* This same reasoning about "the FSF being restrictive" or "too strict" is a historical recipe for Falacies, or at least circular endless discussions. Because one camp says "BSD is more free, it lets you do anything". The other says "BSD allows people who screw your freedom abuse the system".
Me? I tend to agree with the latter opinion, but I think there are components like basic libraries that are better off LGPL or BSD, because by nature they need to be accessed by lots of free software with different licenses, and, at the end of the day, you want to help them all.
Maybe they should have used public domain license, if they did not desire protection against stripping of four freedoms.
Also, "freedom for slaver" means "restriction for slave". "Restriction for slaver" means "freedom for slave".
"Freedom to close source down anytime" means "restriction to open the software".
"Freedom to open the software" means "restriction to close it down".
Not many licenses are free as in Freedom, but GPL definately IS the one.
So, if you step on Freedom in GPL, you trigger license violation. I don't think its hard to understand.
There's nothing 'wrong' with them doing this, everyone has the right to licence 'their' code as per 'their' wishes, however the problems generated by this choice as discussed in the article does not fall on FSF, as it is Ribbonsoft who chose to make their code GPLv2 ONLY and thus incompatible with later GPL versions.