A couple of points
Most FOSS licenses, as best I know, are written/reviewed by legal beagles. But what has not been well tested is whether they are binding on developers who are using the code. In particular, what parts of the specific license are legally problematic. But there a couple of points. The copyright owner has the ultimate authority to specify the conditions something is released under as long as it does not exceed their legal rights. Now the tricky part is whether the FOSS license constitutes a contract with binding terms. This gets into whether EULAs which they really are valid and what areas legally void. Again, EULAs have not been well tested.
Now to Bruce Perens, there is a general understanding that the GPL is a viral license that does not allow closely off extensions or additions to the code. This is Bruce's position. But it has not been litigated to the best of my knowledge. Suing Bruce because he stated their actions violated a commonly and widely accepted view is rather idiotic.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
