I wasn't judging the licenses... just the debate

Why yes indeed, I am biased.   I prefer a debate where the points are reasoned and presented well.  And since I was told to judge the debate and not the licenses, that's what my assessement reflects.Please read my detailed analysis, and see how scored each person.  I had no idea how my vote would actually turn out until I carefully played back the entire debate and scored each point for or against each presenter, and then summed it up.Matt Asay did a bad job at debate. That doesn't mean the GPL is a bad license. Resorting as he did (frequently) to the notion that "the GPL must be good, look at how many people use it" turned me off real quick, because popularity has nothing to do with merit.  In fact, in the chat during the live show, others were agreeing with me that this is just another version of "VHS has to be better, because it's more popular than Beta".  Sorry, doesn't fly.Actually, if Matt had just elaborated a bit with a connection between popularity and merit, I would have changed all my votes on that.  He could have said, for example, that if many projects all use the same license (no matter what it is), they're much easier to combine into distros.  That would have been a linking point that justified the remaining mentions of popularity.  But no, he failed.In fact, having listened to the debate, I started looking at the EPL, because the presentation for the EPL was well thought out and justified.If you have a specific argument with any of my observations, please elaborate.  But don't confuse my conclusion about the debate with any conclusion about the merits of the licenses that I might have.  I remained objective.  Can you also be objective in that way?