You know, "REAL WORLD" is nothing than a bunch of people like you and me; so essentially you are trying to impose your own "WORLD" upon mine which will fail.
Can I destroy your argument directly? Okay, what will you do if CIA primary mass-espionage and intelligence tool would be running entirely on opensource software ? (although top secret). Yes, I understand, CIA are not "REAL". Hahaha
I mean, nearly every software that I use is opensource, from gaming to manufacturing & ERP. Welcome to REAL WORLD, I guess.
I want GPL3 and later. I don't want 2 year old outdated brick thrown out as unsupported outdated GPL2. By the way, there is no such thing as "GPL2", there is only GPL and its lastest revision is 3.
I want commercial entries to either completely adapt development model onto GPL; or if they don't manage that - to use EULA, but be diligent, self-contained, polite and reasonable. Either way, the choice what to use lies on buyer and if buyer is smart enough any EULA is deemed unstable in the long run, so why invest in it in the first place? Because if opensource project is closed regardless of reasons, its code will still be here to reuse and build upon. For proprietary - this is in essence purchase of rights to use software under serious restrictions. This is why I personally prefer to support projects giving me full rights and being completely open on their state.
I don't play WoW, but Blizzard would be perfectly fine completely GPLing WoW, both client and server, while requiring payment for comfort playing, server maintenance, ongoing development patches - stuff that people really okay to pay for. If anyone is here unable to pay, well then set up your own server and spend your time maintaining it. After while you may very well join Blizzard as server admin.
But they can go on doing it in proprietary way, personally I don't care - because I would need WINE for that, would risk to being banned due to Blizzard warden, plus normal "wasting time and money". Hence, I am not into MMORPG... But I certainly don't like them rushing in like you did, posting requirements to support their proprietary crap like major bosses on top of the shoulders of other opensource developers that will have to do the homework for them.
Linux will take off, if it has projects that provide acceptable solutions to joe. How this projects function, how they are being founded, what development model they use - its their own sole choice and they will fight over joe. So if proprietary crap does not support Linux, and Linux is joe's platform of choice for obvious to joe reasons, proprietary crap will not get joe' money. Nothing else matters for proprietary other than getting money from joe. If joe is also a picky customer, then commercial entity producing software for joe will inevitably be forced to look for ways to use opensource development.
So common, joe, start giving a damn to make the world a better place.
Canonical is essentially trying to destroy its community, a lot of people quit using them. With recent move, they are isolating themselves, instead of building upon opensource, they use opensource to build just another microsoft-ish empire; instead of collaborating as a player, they isolate and require others to do bugfixing for them.
In 2010-2011 Shuttleworth was unaware enough to drop the line that Ubuntu is opencore; immediately denying and hiding this afterwards.
What choices do you defend? Amazon malware? Unity? Mir? Always-broken KDE? Low-quality package selection? Absence of GUI tools to configure the system? Wide availability of closed source applications in Ubuntu Store instead of motivating partners to develop within opensource model? Where is this "ubuntu" definition suddenly gone?
Unlike Canonical, Stallman never change - he was always fair, direct and freedom fighter, and he still is. What he forgot to add are proposals how to make GPL-licensed software profitable, but I think he left that intentionally blank so that other people define how to monetize it.
So, i already live within "Stallman utopia" by your definition since ... 6 years? Works just fine for me
Freedom of one ends with freedom of another, you can't have it both ways; which is why I am for freedom by restriction of taking freedom away.
If you are for other type of freedom, where one can do anything - thats not freedom, its anarchy. Usually the "REAL WORLD" definition of it is SLAVERY.
That said I am for GPL view on things, but I am not to restrict what people want to run; if closed source behaves, I have no problem using that - although it feels just wrong. By behaving, I mean exactly NOT-trying to reform whole linux to make it a proprietary bitch (rephrasing of John Romero slogan).
For example - Flash is gone, HTML5 is here. Is it good? Yes, it is. Did content developers loose jobs? No, they didn't. And so on.
So, right now Atheros and Intel are my definite heroes.
Thats a reason why girls are not allowed onboard.