Stewart has been pushing his “Copyleft Trolls” paper, including online. It’s not really a paper in the law review tradition. It’s way more loaded and activist than that. It’s more like a blog post with footnotes, and of course there is an actual blog post.
It doesn’t surprise me that Doctorow picked it up. It’s on-story and on-tone for him.
But if you read the paper, Stewart doesn’t actually grok copyleft:
The movement to reform or replace copyright with a system more suited to online use and culture, particularly favoring noncommercial secondary uses through contract-based alternatives, is sometimes called “copyleft.”
A lot of the licenses he’s talking about, or the licenses involved in many of the cases he’s talking about, aren’t copyleft at all. A lot of the suits are about CC-BY licensed work where the users didn’t give attribution.
I’m not a fan of many of those lawsuits. Or the lawyers who bring them. But the idea that every license should have a grace provision that saves people who violate the terms isn’t open and shut. There are certainly cases where it makes way more sense, and is perfectly fair, for creators to choose the older 3.0 CC licenses that don’t have the “fix”.
There was a parallel push from Red Hat and some others to get Linux contributors to “backport” a GPLv3-style grace provision into the GPLv2 terms for their past contributions. Whole 'nother topic, but related, for those following along from a strictly software point of view.