One of the big misunderstanding of copyleft licenses is who they are aimed at. The allegedly "more permissive" licenses are only more permissive to the developer, but they say nothing about how permissive the software is to the end user. Such "permissive license" may manifest as very restricted or even malicious software, so it's really incorrect to call it such. The GPL is permissive for the intended audience of software licenses - the end users.
The GPL is permissive for the intended audience of software licenses - the end users.
Yes, precisely! And one of the ideals that Free software is designed around is that there are no end users - everyone can be a developer (or farm it out to anyone willing to work the job - ultimate free market capitalism). Unfortunately, there are still bills to be paid, and people are raised in the mindset of "I've got mine; who cares about anyone else?" and always grasping for more. So they think they can't make any money with GPL software, or it will expose them to legal worries, or they'll be forced to open source all their code. In the case of the first, this is categorically not true. In the latter two cases, no one has been able to bring up a credible example of when this has ever happened in the 20+ years the GPL has been in existence.
