>Sounds as good news for any competitor (if your company has any).
Actually thinking of Amazon.com. They have competitors, sure. But they also have the budget to write their own entire stacks internally when the license doesn't fit. And it's not like their decision to avoid GPL software is hurting them in the market in any relevant way.
When something is MIT licensed, they'll use it, and they can and do contribute changes upstream. GPLv2 code requires serious hoop jumping to use, and GPLv3 software is verboten (the patent clause can't be adhered to by large companies with cross-licensing agreements: Many of these licensed patents can't be sublicensed, and so they can't be in compliance with the license at all).
So all GPL does is prevent companies from using and supporting the software. For every instance of an MIT project that ends up modified in proprietary code there are probably 100 that either use it verbatim or contribute changes back upstream. It just makes sense so that you don't need to keep maintaining an increasingly divergent fork.
When you are large enough and entrenched enough, you can do suboptimal decision and still win the race in both market share and revenue. IE and Microsoft comes in mind, and it took major failures and long time before competitor started to gain ground.
And it would explain why say a gaming company can't have such rigid policies. Preventing that a game get delayed is worth both lawyer time and, in the case that a license directly conflict with the business model, send mail to the author and asking for an exception. For example, I recall that LGPLv3 which has the same patent clause you describe as "clause can't be adhered to by large companies" is used by blizzard in starcraft 2. Blizzard is not Google in size, but they are not exactly a street vendor. One might also ask if they have much need to protect patents about xml parsing, or fonts, or what ever specialized functions those numerous library do that blizzard use to build a game. The only thing they don't use is copyleft, as their core business model is designed around restricting copying in order to limit supply when selling copies.
Per case evaluation make sense when your product is time sensitive and when there is a lot of competition. A game from Blizzard is almost treated the same by the market as a game by a indie studio (keyword: almost), and a such can't rely on market share to protect them. A bad, delayed, and rushed game is still bad and won't sell regardless of who made it (To name an example, the last batman game). They must be agile, which mean religious thinking about software licenses must be thrown out and per-case evaluation be added to the process. If a library can be use within the business model, saves time and money, and is not your core ingredient in making your game stand out, its almost always a good idea to use it.
It's the Google/Amazon/IBM/Apple size where you end up with endemic cross-licensing patent agreements. That's where they can't adhere to it: They have a license to a thousand patents that protects them from being sued, but they don't have the right to sublicense those same patents. (L)GPLv3 requires they sublicense any patents they have to anyone who's sued, IIRC, so since they can't, they lose the ability to distribute their software.
I'd be somewhat surprised if Blizzard were a party to such an agreement. They might be party to a "patent-troll-don't-sue-me" agreement, I guess? No idea. But if they are, depending on the terms of their agreement, someone could potentially sue them over it based on LGPLv3 terms.
I'm not planning to, so I haven't done the research, to be sure. The risk scenario that comes to mind is a stretch, but say I buy a Blizzard game with LGPLv3 code in it, which grants me the right to be protected against patent lawsuits relevant to that code, and then I ship my own game that uses the same LGPLv3 code -- and I'm sued by a patent troll over a patent that Blizzard has licensed through some agreement. Guess what? I can now demand that Blizzard protect my use of the same LGPLv3 code by sublicensing me that patent. Which they (probably) don't have the right to do. So they either pay for my license or they have to stop distributing their LGPLv3 code.
For Amazon, who distribute tons of code for people to use in AWS, and the fact that they're a much larger, more collectable company, the scenario is proportionally worse.
It's all beside the point, though: In no case is it the line-level developer making the call, it's someone in management. Not everyone can (or even wants to) work for Blizzard or equivalent.
In particular, not everyone wants to work at literally half the compensation or less just so they can have full software freedom, whatever that means. The Google/Amazon/Apple compensation can be that much better than start-ups for top developers. I didn't realize this myself until I got a job at one of them.
And I'd love to be able to use RethinkDB where ever I end up next, without having to worry about whether the company legal department has a problem with (A|L)GPLv3. It's a battle I wouldn't even bother taking on in most cases; too much work when I could use something else and get back to doing real work.
Actually thinking of Amazon.com. They have competitors, sure. But they also have the budget to write their own entire stacks internally when the license doesn't fit. And it's not like their decision to avoid GPL software is hurting them in the market in any relevant way.
When something is MIT licensed, they'll use it, and they can and do contribute changes upstream. GPLv2 code requires serious hoop jumping to use, and GPLv3 software is verboten (the patent clause can't be adhered to by large companies with cross-licensing agreements: Many of these licensed patents can't be sublicensed, and so they can't be in compliance with the license at all).
So all GPL does is prevent companies from using and supporting the software. For every instance of an MIT project that ends up modified in proprietary code there are probably 100 that either use it verbatim or contribute changes back upstream. It just makes sense so that you don't need to keep maintaining an increasingly divergent fork.