The goal of the GPL is user freedom (not developer freedom), so it is intentional that it is hostile to situations where proprietary software is involved. There is the LGPL for allowing those situations though.

The GPL doesn't care about control schemes though, so your nuclear reactor example seems strange.

The GNU family of licenses don't care about contributions, only about user software freedom. In the case of hosting companies, the AGPL was created to preserve user freedom for network oriented software, it isn't perfect but is reasonably good.

It is incorrect to say these companies are switching to different licensing schemes because of lack of contributions from hosting companies, the correct reason is that the hosting companies make a lot of money and the software companies want that money for themselves.