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

1. They add friction to people's decision to use your code. Many companies just blanket ban the use of GPL code, but even if you're "allowed" by your org, you have to think about whether it'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'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're prepared to publish source code), but it seems people philosophically don'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?