Yet again, people don't understand open source software licenses. I was reading this Information Week Article: New Open-Source License Draft Less Controversial Than Feared For Business and while it's not terrible, it propagates the erroneous idea that a new rev of the gpl means google and ebay might have to open up code it is not prepared to.
All that a rev of the gpl means is that, if we don't like the provisions of the new one (which is pretty reasonable, then we opt to not upgrade and maintain the gpl v2 code ourselves.
This is not a big deal. Also, the kernel team has said that they likely won't use the upgraded licenses. Again, I don't want to slam the article too much, but a rev of an free software license can not be retroactive otherwise the ability to fork the code would be impossible.
There are some tricky points in the new draft, for sure, but forcing Google or Ebay or whoever runs Linux to upgrade isn't one of them. Forcing upgrades is not free software's way.