I don't really want to contribute to the license debates, but this is a funny analogy someone came up with on IRC, slightly coloured. :)
Imagine a village with a big, active group of people caring for a pet together, let's say it's a dog, one of those purebred dogs you see in dog show competitions, who is the village's mascot and who gets its hair cut every now and then. There's a community of villagers who maintain a fund for food and other services for the doggie and they all enjoy it and they enjoy seeing their pet grow bigger and win competitions.
Now the doggie has grown up a lot and the project has come a long way since the dog was a puppy and some people started calling for a change of the dog's haircut. They think the old look is inappropriate for a dog of this size and that it looked a little silly from the start. Some people have the opposite opinion though, but both groups are a minority, most villagers don't really care. However, it happens that the owners of the kennel are pro-new-haircut. A lot of people support them because they have taken good care of the dog's place and they became an authority in the village. A process was outlined whereby once there is enough support for the new haircut, the dog hairdresser will visit the village and give the dog a new look. The process has been taking quite long however and there isn't enough support for the change yet. Many people have accepted the change because they like the new planned haircut better, but even more accepted because they support the kennel owners and some did because the process was dragging on for so long, or because they didn't want to upset others.
Now the pro-change people, including the kennel owners committee said they can't look at the old haircut anymore. Phase 5 of the Haircut Change Process is approaching at which point the committee declared it's either the dog with the new haircut or there's no dog. They decided they're going to shoot or poison the doggie if there isn't enough support and people don't grant them an irrevocable, perpetual, world-wide right to decide on the dog's haircuts in the future, and then they said "Now we wouldn't want to see our pet suffer, would we?". They also said the people can keep their old photographs of the doggie with the old haircut even after phase 5.
A new wave of villagers accepted the change in terror, but there's still the group who won't accept. Some of them like the old haircut better but more than that they don't like the way this is handled. Even those that learnt to like the new planned look can't accept the conditions put before them in a way of an ultimatum. A lot of them think this sort of demand from the kennel owners is unacceptable because the mascot's well being is being used to influence the decision.
Unfortunately there's also a big new wave of outrage towards the people who didn't submit to the ultimatum (sign this or the puppy gets it) and blame for the pet's suffering is put on them rather than on the folks who threaten to hurt to animal.
No one knows how the story will unfold :)