Mark Shuttleworth wrote an excellent article on Open Source “license proliferation” without once using that term, and though he mentions the Open Source Initiative (OSI) he does not discuss their current work in this area.
It seems to me that OSI is already working on the problem, and I would never describe them as “a driver of fragmentation” nor lacking credibility. Would you?
I think OSI provided essential language to allow a more diverse audience to understand and participate, while Richard Stallman continues to be hung up on nomenclature for a very ambiguous English word, “free”. “Libre software” 
I am a supporter of Creative Commons licensing, but not for software and related artifacts which I don’t think Mark is suggesting, but what some may conclude.
Why I don’t recommend CC for software relates to the reason why Ubuntu’s wiki is public domain, and frustration that Firefox MDC’s is CC licensed. Both are invaluable releases to me, but open source developer Ian McKellar taught me that material that I find at MDC that I might want to include in open source software is incompatible with most open source licenses!
On the microformats irc channel on February 22, Mark Pilgrim wizened me to one of the “nuanced reasons to prefer straight-gpl-licensed code”, “[derivatives] of straight-gpl programs must themselves be straight-gpl, thus ensuring license compatibility”.
I used to prefer working with BSD or MT licensed code because I appreciated the purity of the freedom. Now, I think I am more pragmatic and only want to see GPL. A few less headaches.
- Classroom Wants to be Flat! Projector for Global Perspective
- Technology to Keep Students Engaged in Learning!
- A Drive to Learn