I prefer the BSD style licensing. I've heard it said that the difference between the GPL & BSD licensing is analogous to the difference between rape & making love.
The BSD license's requirement to maintain the copyright and license intact is a virus that propogates through all derivative copies of the code. Some BSD license variants additionally restrict freedom by requiring certain notices to be displayed during program execution, or restricting what can be said about derivative copies.
BSD license advocates are just as dogmatic as GPL license advocates. The GPL is simply a better dogma if you want to balance the freedom you give other developers against the potential for those developers to take advantage of your code by selling compiled or obfuscated derivative works without contributing anything back. If you don't care about whether your code gets locked up in proprietary products, by all means use the BSD license, but some people do care.
I understand the point regarding possible subsequent proprietary projects, but such would seem to be an incentive to improve ones code, as the code is still yours to work with.
The GPL requirement to maintain the copyright and license intact is a virus that propogates through all derivative copies of the code.
There's different interpretations of which is which.
Some people would say GPL="rape" and BSD="making love", others would say GPL="making love" and BSD="rape"
Shit.
That statement is exactly why a lot of developers license their code or contributions under the GPL. They don't want you to have the freedom to sell and unilaterally profit from open source code they contributed to (for free). You can always try to form an arrangement with the contributors to get a different license.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I like the ideals of free software, it's just not totally practical for everything.