The problem isn't with copyleft licenses, only with GPL (in its various variations). You don't get license incompatibility problems with other copyleft licenses, eg MPL; you need GPL for that.
Don't forget the LGPL, which, in its attempt to allow proprietary software to use LGPLed code with conditions, makes it painful to use LGPLed code in free software licensed under anything other than the GPL.
Can you elaborate? This does not make sense to me
See LGPL v2.1 section 7. It's annoying to comply with. Section 6 too. 7a was clearly designed for proprietary software. It would be a problem with the GPL too if section 3 wasn't there.
LGPL v3 didn't make things better.
The problem with Apache 2.0 is that it's incompatible with GPLv2. That's the main problem with copyleft licenses, they are made as if they were the only FOSS licenses in the world and just introduce incompatibilites between different camps. Apache 2.0 vs GPLv2, GPL vs CDDL, GPLv2 vs GPLv3[1]. I prefer to go with permissive licenses and save myself the headache. Regarding Apache, a common solution is dual-licensing under Apache+MIT (e.g. the default for Rust projects created with Cargo), which takes care of this problem.
[1]: And "vN or later" is not a solution, since that's just a backdoor of a random org in US.