I’ll specify more about where my cynicism comes in for copyleft licensing from an anarchist perspective.
GPL is law-induced sharing of code if you want to build competition. Laws are ultimately rules enforced by states, which gain authority through threat of violence and imprisonment.
It’s ironic that people use the blanket statement that copyleft always improves freedoms when it ultimately relies on a the state and its legal economy to work.
Permissive licenses also rely on this legal economy, but simply to try amd avoid nonsensical lawsuits for how an author’s code is used, versus trying to curb economic behavior through legal threat.
Using state-backed legal enforcement to encourage good behavior is philisophically separated from an ecosystms that permissive licensing tends to encourage which os free flow of ideas and innovation regardless of economic intent.
That said, dreaming of philisophical ideals to say everything should be permissive, versus a dose of realism that a delicate application of both copyleft and permissive licensing is called for. For example, the Matrix spec/protocol being permissive and various competitive and community implementations being both copyleft and permissive to the author’s discretion. This protects developers like you from opportunists like “NeargosX” in my example above while encouraging a larger ecosystem and openness for healthy competitive variants of implementations.
Living in the reality that we do live in various state-backed legal systems and economies with large corporate actors that want to exploit healthy developer economies and profit off their work for free is why copyleft privides value and much needed legal protections to avoid that exploitation. This also assumes the state will correctly interpret AGPL, but that’s another can of worms.
So I think permissive is ideal when free flow of ideas and adoption is most important, copyleft is best for areas of high risk for profiteer exploitation of developers and the community’s code.