If Stallman wants to publish a new license, he is certainly free to do so, but he doesn't have the power to make other people use it.
I share his concern about DRM. I think it's not good for consumers. However, license restrictions is not the way to deal with this. Personally, I agree with Linus' more pragmatic stance to Stallmans.
I care about how DRM is implemented, the concept itself is fine. So long as I can buy a CD and be allowed to rip it so I can listen on my mp3 player im all good. So long as I can copy a DVD for backup Im good. Its when DRM starts to interfere with fair use that I get upset. The problem with stallman, like most extremest, is they cant see the difference between a technology and how someone might abuse it.
The Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2, and copyright by a cast of thousands, beginning with Linus Torvalds. That part is not at any risk from Stallman's antics. His new license simply doesn't apply to the Linux kernel, and there is nothing he can do about it. Linus and all the top kernel maintainers have stated clearly and with certainty that they are not moving off the GPLv2 license.
But a great swath of user code, including the critical gcc compiler, and most of the classic Unix utilities, is under Free Software Foundation, Inc. (FSF) copyright. The FSF can re-release that code under any license it chooses, and can decide to accept any future changes only under some other license, such as GPLv3 instead of GPLv2.
There are currently over 5,000 such GNU software packages, as listed at FSF/UNESCO Free Software Directory. These packages are critical to all BSD and Linux based systems, including Mac OS X.
FSF owns this code. Programmers cannot currently get any changes into the main line of code development for this software unless they hand over Copyright to FSF.
What programmers can do is to fork all this code, before -any- GPLv3 only changes are made to it, and continue to use, modify, and distribute it, under the GPLv2 license terms granted everyone. The major distributions, such as Red Hat, SuSE, Debian and Ubuntu, could seal the success of such a fork, by refusing to pick up GPLv3 code.
If that happened, the FSF would cease to be an active player. They would continue to hold copyright on this code in perpetuity. But almost no one would send them any more changes, and they would be out of the loop, both in terms of license affect, and in terms of code maintenance.
Then you agree with the author.
If Stallman wants to publish a new license, he is certainly free to do so, but he doesn't have the power to make other people use it.
Stallman himself owns the copyrights on a large portion of GPL software, and since his current GPL2 license includes a sneaky "future versions" clause it appears he can legally convert anything he wants to the new version whether he owns the copyrights or not.