No, the evil of pretending to be open source and pro community, but only really caring about $£€.

If the community chooses MIT/BSD inspired licenses, they don't care about such companies coming into action.

How often does the community choose a non-copyleft license? What I always see is a company choosing a non-copyleft license.

I'm a sample size of one, but I often pick a permissive BSD/MIT license for the personal software I develop, and at times will pick BSD-licensed over GPL-licensed software. I prefer the brevity and clarity of the shorter licenses, personally. I've also found that, sometimes, if there are two similar projects with a BSD vs GPL split, the BSD project tends to be more pragmatic and focused on the product/code more, while GPL projects err towards ideology, possibly at the cost of functionality. OpenSSH vs lsh as an example.

All the time, in the OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD ecosystems.

In fact, being anti-GPL has become kind of fashionable, so there you have it.