many of them pay money to the various charitable organizations that support our movement.

Anecdotal "evidence" is not even worth mentioning. Please back this statement up with statistics. Show me the money.

The GPL had flaws that lead to the LGPL

Careful there, that's highly subjective. The LGPL is considered by many to be a large step back in the progress of Open Source software (consult your local free software mailing list for many examples).

Afaiui

Whew, confusing me there. What's wrong with AFAIK? These non-standard acronyms waste my valuable seconds. IIRC TNSAIQ (The Non-Standard Acronym In Question) SF (stood for) "As Far As I Understand It."

Onto the main point. There are many other licenses that could have accomplished the Artistic licenses' goal. The Artistic license is not the only alternative to the GPL. The Artistic license is not the only license that encourages commercial use of the software (hell, even the GPL does). By loopholes, I meant legal loopholes. See This, this, this or just search google. You'll find tonnes of examples.

A few quotes from the links for the link-shy:

Although the OAL was intended to be as 'solid' and enforeacable as the GPL, it was poorly worded and constructed, resulting in a license that many claim would not hold up in a court of law.
...
This legal weakness has resulted in many variations being created that try their best to follow the OAL's intent, but fixing the many loopholes and vagueness.

And...

the Artistic license is extremely confusing and poorly worded. Lawyers would likely advise against the use of this license. The Artistic license is filled with loopholes.

Do a little research and the flaws in the license become obvious. This seems to be a case of reinventing the wheel to satisfy an ego.