I’ll watch with interest, and am heartened with the responses I see. One thing I wish is that the license were also more “lightweight”. GPL3 for a piece of backend network infra seems a bit fraught. This is usually the domain of ISC, MIT, or BSD.
Samba is GPLv3. OpenLDAP has its own license but has some GPL-like clauses regarding code redistribution. I can’t recall what NIS is licensed under but it was written by Sun and then licensed to other vendors so odds are it’s not MIT/BSD either.
I say "lightweight" in terms of text and comprehension.
I say "fraught" because it imposes conditions on running this on the network. Perhaps fraught is too editorial. Regardless - in some environments, that "stickiness" of the GPL is a non-starter. One may say that "weeding out" those envs is part of the point. In my opinion though, for things like libraries or "lower level" software there seems to be a school of thought where "getting it out there" is more important than "saving it" from modifications.
I tend to think of GPL[2/3] as for end-user applications, like openoffice or ardour[0] (paging 'PaulDavisThe1st) and libraries and network services as mit/bsd/isc/lgpl so they can interact with Other Software without forcing anything on that Other Software.
I hesitated even posting my original comment, but don't mind getting a potentially new read on others devs point of view on this area.
Briefly, on "block[ing] companies ... that [don't] bring anything of value...", you also block orgs that would bring value, but might not want to be legislated to publish everything.
