> Open source software has become very successful, but much of this success is in projects with non-copyleft licenses (e.g. Apache, MIT, or BSD licenses), and even in the GPL-licensed projects (e.g. Linux) I am skeptical that the copyleft aspect was really an important factor in the project’s success.

GCC. Yes, a while ago now. But I think it is the canonical example of a success with the GPL. GCC was the standard for decades. Still is. It was adopted nearly everywhere. It was, and still is, one of the technologically most sophisticated, portable and feature-complete compilers.

Clang/LLVM coming along under a BSD-style license is not a defeat here, but only underscoring the point.

The GPL is annoying if you're something like Apple. Yet the only way that GCC could be successfully competed with was to make an even better program. And it was necessary that it be libre licensed to effectively compete, too. Either GPL or more permissive. Clang and LLVM would certainly have died young if they were proprietary. A win for libre software tools, and the GPL is the prime mover behind it. GCC's success under the GPL has effectively guaranteed all major compilers will be libre licensed in some way.

He has some good points about application services, and I see no obvious solution there.

Whatever ones opinions are of the FSF is, it has never had as many associate members as it has right now. (I'm not one)

the organisation is funded mainly via membership not through corporate sponsorships.