> Some entities are afraid copyleft would lock them out of profitable business models
It would lock them out of profitable business models, so they make a perfectly rational decision, as a business, to not use it. You can call that fear if you like, and I can call that "abuse of semantics" :)
> I don't want to be unpaid labor, I don't want people to recast being unpaid labor in terms of promoting freedom, and I damned well don't want people calling the licenses that keep me from being unpaid labor "fascist" as they did down-thread from here in this very discussion.
That's completely fair. If you develop open source code and you want to license it as copyleft, go ahead. It's your code.
The flip side is that if I develop an open source project, I'm free to make it MIT or whatever because I think the contributions of large companies to my project are valuable. Yes, they can make enhancements and not share them with me. But in practice, they will often merge them into my project because maintaining their own fork is expensive.
On the other hand, if I have to make my code copyleft because it uses your code, they will almost certainly not use or contribute to my code at all, because that would require theirs to be copyleft as well. Therefore I don't use or contribute to your code.
My decision not to use copyleft code isn't based on fear. It's because I know it will take my project in a direction I don't want it to go, and make it unusable for people who I would like to use it.
As for being unpaid labor, that's a personal choice as well. I don't care about it, personally. I'm working on my project either way, because I want to. It's no skin off my nose if somebody else finds a way to make money from it. The minute working on it becomes a burden, I'm free to stop.