That is right. I just know, that many companies flee from GPL licenses (and more so AGPL). They omit any product involving GPL just to be sure not to get any juristic hassles (if rational or not).
Here is the culprit: When no other people invest in enhancements, there is also nothing that can go back upstream.
I like free software very much, but I also don't want to be forced to give things free, that I make. Problem is not the small enhancements I make to an OSS product, but when I link or use some OSS part in a bigger software that I made -- should I always be forced to give everything for free?
Particularly for companies, that is a difficult thing.
To be clear: Of course I would give away my contributions to an OSS product, but I also want to be free, to use OSS in commercial products without need to fear that I loose my own rights.
GPL here is just difficult and when lawyers have to decide about software, anything can happen (as in the patent-wars).
Any company that arbitrary limit themselves will be at an disadvantage to their competitors. LAMP for example include GPL products and avoiding it can be more costly and time consuming than the alternative (hosting solutions with LAMP for example).
A great example of such competitive environment is game development where you can't let religious fear of licenses get in the way. If a license is compatible with the business model then use it, and if not then try to get the developer to give you an exception. Development time is precious in getting the product released in the right time window and in a stable state. Studios can't afford skipping GPL development tools (which would not be part of the end product) or LGPL libraries (unless constrained by aspects shared by the competition), as the risk to the company from delayed release is significant higher than the cost of having a lawyer go through a license and confirm if it will impact the model for releasing the game. As a result many AAA games are released with a huge list of free and open source libraries.
But if you are an incumbent holder in a market with very little competition, then you can have policy against licenses and do well. What would an extra month of development for iphone cost Apple as a company?
