Would we have Android today were it not for GPLv2 and Linux licensed under it?

But indeed, GPL does limit the ways you can distribute software licensed under it. In particular, licensing something like a library, or another early-bound component under GPL forces the users to license their work under GPL, too. This is why LGPL exists.

Absolutely! Not saying that Apple model is right or wrong, but they certainly chose BSD consciously (whether or not it was because of the encumbrance of GPL, or any technical reasons).

It's simply wrong to say that nobody pays attention to this. It's a choice you make, and whether you view the consequences as "repercussions" or "features" depends entirely on your view and the actual outcomes of those choices.

Fwiw I understand that Darwin is also available as BSD, so it seems you can get some good actors that are willing to pay it forward without necessarily needing to add a license that goads them into it.

Apple/NeXT had serious experience with the GPL license when shipping their GCC-based Objective-C compiler.

Their subsequent choice to use BSD-licensed components, and to support/create BSD-licensed components where only GPLed components existed, must be seen in the light of this experience.

You're not talking about using the software, you're talking about making derivatives. The GPL doesn't restrict use of software in any way. It only prevents you from redistributing derivatives under more restrictive terms.

This is splitting hairs. Of course there is no restriction on use, but in order to produce a derivative work I will want to eat my own dogfood. If my company's legal department says that our product must remain proprietary and closed-source, then it stands to reason I will not be able to build it on a GPL base. Those people will likely have to choose not to use GPL software, at least to some extent.

(If they have a good legal department that understands intellectual property issues at all, and their product team knows they don't actually need to hack on the Linux kernel to make whatever they're building, then they will not likely be restricted against using Linux ... but the decision will necessarily restrict their choices when finding other components to use as part of the system they are building.)

Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, I certainly feel is debatable and I'll reserve judgement. But it is provably wrong to say that nobody chooses not to use a GPL-licensed piece of software because of the license it is distributed under. Tons of people do.

No it's not splitting hairs. Using a piece of software and distributing a derivative of that piece of software are two completely different things. Nobody chooses not to use a piece of software because it's GPL. If people choose not to distribute derivatives under restrictive terms then that's great because that's exactly the reason I licensed it to them under the GPL.

You do what you want when you publish software! But if you take the entire class of people that produce derivative works, and count them as "not users" you are making a set error. Derivative works producers are also users.

GPL licensing will not stop me from using your software. It will stop some people. I do not say that I agree with those people and their decisions. I could not have built my career without GPL software, and it does not stop me.