As I replied below, the distinction between libraries and servers is a good one. I was too extreme in my statement without making that distinction.

For libraries, yes, absolutely, companies should rightly be cautious, because it's relatively easy to expose yourself to legal risk.

Nobody is "going away with the work of others" – the whole point of a license is so contributors decide how others can use their work. What exactly is the issue here?

GPLv3 is for a lot of companies too aggressive on requirements around patent defense, etc. Though many were never fond of the copy-left nature of GPLv2(and 1), they allowed it. GPLv3 upped the bar, to a degree that many lawyers won't sign off on its use.

Apache 2.0 is the standard for almost every company I've dealt with, with MIT and BSD 3 clause being accepted as well. But Apache 2 seems to make most lawyers happy.