A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions. Most places run gpl3 stuff just fine. The one organizations won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL.

> I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise

My limited experience with IP lawyers at big software companies is that they have zero understanding of software licensing and patent law. They just seem to parrot some line they learned in college 10 years ago, even when the plain text of the license or law sitting in front of them proves them wrong. It's honestly baffling how they get these jobs.

I can see it makes sense for Apple (anti-tivoization is something they do not want).

> I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise

So they do not allow the use of things like Bash or GNU coreutils? That seems quite restrictive and difficult.

I used to work for a company that used AGPL. For databases, in particular, it's not as noxious as people make it seem, other than if you are a hyperscalar trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and run them out of business, or a bottom feeding hosted service company also trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and coattail on their success.

Otherwise it works great for end-user adoption.