This might be unpopular with some, but I& #39;m no fan of the GPL licenses (including AGPL). Let me explain, and you tell me where I& #39;m wrong - I& #39;m open to having my mind changed

1. They add friction to people& #39;s decision to use your code. Many companies just blanket ban the use of GPL code, but even if you& #39;re "allowed" by your org, you have to think about whether it& #39;s going to be OK for your business. Permissive licenses remove this friction

2. GPL licenses get used to stop others from using code unless they pay for a commercial license. So the romantic open source notion gets defeated anyway, and at the cost of fewer free users (due to friction)

3. I& #39;m sure I must be missing something here: seems SSPL is considered not open source because it imposes conditions. (A)GPL also imposes conditions (can only be used if you& #39;re prepared to publish source code), but it seems people philosophically don& #39;t want to see it that way?

4. I suspect that moving to GPL-family licenses might be more likely to encourage a hostile big-corp to fork current Apache code rather than collaborate with the originators?