Rewriting software just because it do not perfectly match a communities opinion about licenses is the least pragmatic way to go about software. It is the my-way-is-the-only-way approach, rather than working together and work with a mix of licenses and focus on the code.

Diversity in licenses is a sign of cooperation.

What is the alternative, break the license or change your own? If I want to allow my library in closed code, I cant import GPL. Hence, I have to rewrite it. Rewriting Apache into GPL makes little sense, but is little work. You can just import it and slap GPL on top.

You cant just mix licenses, because licenses disallow/allow activities.

Take a operative system like debian. It has a huge number of packages in every combination and mix of open source defined and free software defined license. It does not limit itself to only use code that closed code can use. The community embrace license diversity, and thus has very little "my-way-is-the-only-way". As a practice, if they can avoid writing their own stuff they do so, always look around them and see if someone else has already written what they need. They use the "if-you-want-something-different-then-me-you-might-be-right" attitude to code, happy abandoning anything home brewed.

You can't have both a no-ideological community and "no gpl welcome". Either you welcome everyone and focus on getting code to work, or you exclude based on licenses and reinvent the wheel. The question you need to ask is what is important for you. If the most important thing for the project is the license choice, then be upfront about the ideological choice that such goal is. If the goal is to get working code that will use any software you can legally use, then a more pragmatic approach is more suitable.

I personally don't run operative system which focus more on the license rather than getting things done. My work also don't pay me for license choices, but they do for code that works and create value for the customers. I could put agpl code on the servers and you know what, no one would object.

If you are writing a library, the moment you include GPL, you can't be Apache nor MIT nor BSD anymore. You yourself have to change the license so that your close source users are excluded (or forced to give put code). It is right there in GPL license. Only ideology is related to following copyright law. And maybe also respect toward GPL software creators who don't wish their code to be used.

You can legaly include apache in GPL software.

Following your theory, one would either have to break GPL and risk legal problems or exclude close source users of his work.

If the goal of the library is to be used in closed source, you will be limited to reusing code to only those that has compatible license with the closed source. That is a choice you make that has nothing to do with writing software to fix problems that people have in their lives. In some cases this make a economical sense, where you do not just want to solve problems for customers but where the primary goal is to generate property for which the company can own. For other companies, solving problems for customer is how they get paid and the faster they solve one problem the fast they can go to the next.

But I digress. There is a clear bright line between writing code to solve a problem, and rewriting code because the license don't let you create property in the form of closed code. One is about pragmatic problem solving, and one is about ideology. One allows for code reuse, one is limited to my-way-is-the-only-way.

If you live in an ideology that demand that everything you do must be made into property owned by the company and only secondary solves problem for a customer, you will be slower than a companies which more pragmatically focused on fixing problems for customers. Don't blame others if you are self-imposing such restrictions on yourself.

"If the goal of the library is to be used in closed source, you will be limited to reusing code to only those that has compatible license with the closed source. That is a choice you make that has nothing to do with writing software to fix problems that people have in their lives."

It absolutely does. It fixes problem of people who work on close source or otherwise something incompatible is gpl. You either dont count them as people or as problems and neither makes sense. I used open source inside closed source. So yep, if I am going to five away, I will give to the same pool. Generous people gave me something, so I am giving back.

A library that I can not use does not solve any problem. That is not pragmatic, just something with limited use. Which is fine, if you feel strongly about your work use being restricted to some people only. I don't.

The moment when your logic twists gpl into literally "the only pragmatic license" is the moment when I wonder whether you are even honest in your arguments.