I remain convinced that the bad blood between Stallman and Linus over 'GNU/Linux' is at the core of Linus' objections. I don't think he would be attacking the GPLv3 so fiercely if he weren't personally invested somehow.

First, you see him talk about 'motives'; that's a code phrase for 'what Stallman is trying to do'. Most of what he's saying here isn't even arguing the technical merits of the license, he's saying, obliquely, that it's unwise to trust Richard Stallman. (and considering the GNU/Linux imbroglio, he's not entirely wrong to do so.) Most of his explicative text covers variations of this theme.

When examining his specific objections, it's obvious they come from the standpoint of the single most successful Open Source project; at this point, the kernel devs get more personal fame and fortune from broader Linux use, and to get that, they seem willing to trade away future freedoms. It's okay, they argue, for manufacturers to use their code to give us devices we can't change or use in ways of which the manufacturers don't approve.

It appears the devs don't want this restriction added because it will interfere with their own success; they are thinking of their own pocketbooks and fame. Closed-device manufacturers, after all, often hire people to work on the kernel code, increasing the 'jobs for Linux kernel hackers' market. The devs are not, unfortunately, holding end-user rights paramount, one of which is, and always has been, the right to use devices freely that are dependent on Free Software.

If you can't remove and replace the code on a device, but the manufacturer can, particularly without your permission, you don't truly own it. The code has been hijacked. You are enslaved by that code and dependent on it. (see: Microsoft Vista.) Stallman is trying to prevent this from ever happening with anything under the GPL, and he is right to do so.

Linus et al are clearly in the wrong on this issue. They appear willing to trade away our freedoms for their own success, and I'm saddened by this.