GPL was really aggressive from the start. Being "GPL compatible" doesn't really mean "compatible" so much as "gives GPL its way". That became an issue even as w

GPL was really aggressive from the start. Being "GPL compatible" doesn't really mean "compatible" so much as "gives GPL its way". That became an issue even as we saw more GPL variants, like AGPL. When GPLv3 failed to add network copyleft, GPLv3 and AGPLv3 ended up with awkward, matching compatibility provisions built in, so they wouldn't be incompatible with each other. Non-FSF copyleft licenses, like MPLv2 and now EPLv2, try to reduce the resulting pain by including "yields to GPL" clauses. More recent licenses like [Parity](https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0 https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0) head off many problems by allowing more flexibility on terms, while still requiring release. I'm all for considering all options when it comes to software licensing. But both business models and social causes are tightly coupled to choice of license terms. Telling people to just give their stuff away under permissive terms is in fact telling a lot of people not to worry about money or "software freedom".