I use MIT- and BSD-licensed code at work in a closed-source commercial system. The documentation for our system acknowledges our use of the open-source code, and I'm sure the authors are proud to be part of our codebase (with attribution). That's the use-case.
Other than the ZFS-on-Linux situation (which is only a problem because the CDDL was intentionally written to cause it), what is the GPL "too restrictive" for? In the ideal world, literally all software would be AGPLv3.
> In the ideal world, literally all software would be CC-0.
No, because then companies would release heavily obfuscated binaries of everything and not provide the source, or worse, require you to run everything in their cloud and never release anything to you.
The GPL is good for some purposes, but too restrictive for others.