>>15
Dual licensing and ignoring the gpl happened. Take a look at, https://heathermeeker.com/2018/04/30/first-gpl-case-in-china-or-is-it/ and this is when they have a court case to "save face".
Things like the system library exception and general tools make it harder to use the gpl strategically, you can say it's not copyleft enough in this case if you want.
>>16
Violating the gpls intent isn't specifically about corporations and corporations aren't the only abusers of free labour that could be deterrent by the gpl. Corporations use things like the gpl for cheap new age media sensationalism when they want, which is worth a lot and makes people fall into traps like dual licensing and clas or the old bait and switch. Might want to say free labour isn't completely correct since everyone using code must pay in their own labour to use it at varying degrees.
We need more copyleft, not less.
With this viral copyleft license having the same intent as that one, this viral copyleft is incompatible with that one, due to it's viral nature, until one party agrees on a license change and pulls in all the contributors or in worst case everyone loses and the court decides the intent is the same. Did you mean gpl compatible copyleft licenses? The gpl may have exceptions but that doesn't make the other copyleft license stop being viral so it can be gpl here. There's even faq entries about this.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#Consider
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#WhatIsCompatible
The fsf even decides that you should go into their cla for enforcement, which I'm not an expert and sure what enforces them to act in good faith but this is the same as allowing dual licensing without the lead programmer being the one benefiting from the agreement. Saying this is a perfect arbitrator, how many purely gpl projects really do this?