We just had a significant demonstration that you can make money with Apache-licensed software. SpringSource was doubling sales every year with Apache, and had a $420 million outcome as a result of both its sales and its community, which may be easier to come by with an Apache license than GPL, at least for commercial open-source projects.
There's some truth to the fact that a more permissive license may lead to broader adoption by developers. But as significant a payoff as the SpringSource acquisition provided for the company's investors and management, at the end of the day it was still a modest business of around $20 million in sales. It may be that for the products that SpringSource developed and acquired, Apache was the right license. But I don't think it's been proven that permissive licensing can build a robust business.
For companies that want to develop an OEM revenue stream, GPL licensing may be a better choice. You could argue that SpringSource's revenue growth came not from the use of the Apache license, but from acquiring other companies. For example, Hyperic (which the company acquired in May) uses a GPL license and was a significant contributor to SpringSource's overall revenues.
You can follow Zack Urlocker's insightful 140 character essays about technology and music at www.twitter.com/zurlocker