Too much sugar in El Reg's Koolaid...
I think Ashlee added a bit too much sugar to the Koolaid she must have drank before writing this. The most prominent backer of the GPLv3 pretty obviously is the Free Software Foundation, not SugarCRM.
Let's put it this way: I've never used SugarCRM, but I use gnutar everyday, which just converted to GPLv3 with v1.18, and I expect that GCC will move to v3 as well with their next release after the current 4.2.1 version, and much of the rest of the GNU toolchain and utilities will follow suit.
Please note that I don't have anything against SugarCRM, nor do I hold a strong opinion about SugarCRM going with the GPLv3, rather than the GPLv2 or some other license, if they please-- certainly either version of the GPL is better for their users and for developers who might want to use some of their source code than a badgeware license would be.
Moving on, what matters most is whether people who use software end up with something which suits their needs, or can be changed or modified if need be. The Open Source Definition and the OSI approval process are one means to promote better software which comes with the source code and a license which permits changes to be made, shared, and redistributed to others. The FSF and their four freedoms are another good approach, and one which has resulted in a lot of good software, but some people don't care for the way the FSF devalues non-GPLed open source software under permissive licenses, such as BSD or MIT-licensed projects, because such can be used to create closed/proprietary software.
The main difference between the SugarCRM license and SocialText's CPAL is that the latter made some simple but vital changes as a result of the OSI review process. Specifically, to their clause 14(a) about attribution to state "...a prominent display of the Original Developer's Attribution Notice (as defined below) must occur on the graphic user interface (which may include display on a splash screen), if any. If the Executable and Source Code does not launch or run a graphic user interface, this obligation shall not apply."
If SugarCRM was willing to make the same change, they would likely have been approved as well. Without that flexibility, a developer cannot reuse SugarCRM's code to write anything which runs without a GUI capable of displaying their badge. Now, the criticism of the OSI's disorganization with regard to license submission has some merit, but IMHO John Robert's approach to getting OSI approval for his license left a lot to be desired, too.