Lawrence Rosen, former legal counsel for the Open Source Initiative, posted his article on OSL 3.0: A Better License for Open Source Software recently.
I like the OSL 3.0, and his article has affirmed my view. On the other hand, Rosen's article really is just an article that "explains why it (OSL 3.0) is a better license for software than the GPL", and says little, if not nothing at all, on what could make the GPL a better software license than the GPL.
It seems to me that what makes the GPL compelling is the community usage and backing of the FSF. I have seen a ranking of open source license popularity that places the OSL near the top-middle of the list... but on closer inspection the GPL, at #1, is far ahead of the #2 (the (modified) BSD license, if I remember correctly). For all the confusing nature of various versions of the GPL, the FSF has backed it up with its own arguments and explanations. Some might be legally... disputed, but with such an organisation to back you up and with major open source players using it, the GPL does seem like a good bet.
So, after reading Rosen's arguments, would you consider the OSL 3.0 for an open source software project for which you want a reciprocal license? Or would you stick with the GPL, or some other reciprocal/copyleft license? If so, why?