When what-came-to-be-known-as-BOSL was first revealed, I raised several objections, including:
What licenses are compatible with TGPPL?
Ideology and abstract goals aside, this is a crucial practical question. We are very used to compromising and using open-source license that don’t perfectly match our tastes, because the alternative is a compatability nightmare or (more commonly) an adoption blocker that benefit no one.
See additional points in that thread.
Unfortunately, that skepticism still seems well-placed. Having read the ensuing forum discussions, I’m still doubtful about BOSL’s merits, worried about its downsides, and confused about why vanilla GPL isn’t clearly better (by itself or as dual license).
I thus strongly support transitioning to the MIT license, or at least dual-licensing under GPL.