Software licenses are a fuck, but under capitalism where arbitrary rules are king, they're expected to be honored. Haven't read the details here but the GPL license pretty much says "if you're using this it needs to also be GPL licenses so it stays FOSS" so that's a big one. There's some issues though, normally that more permissive licensed software won't pull in GPL stuff.

There was a lot of drama last spring around an XML file that one Ruby library used originally coming from the freedesktop dot org group (which uses GPL). Someone from freedesktop realized, lightly threatened the maintainer with a lawsuit, and the maintainer yanked all the versions that were MIT licensed (more permissive than GPL). This library was a dependency of the Rails framework, which is far and away the most popular usage of Ruby (also MIT licensed) and basically broke all fresh installs or builds of Rails projects for a day or so. The net result is that the original library got removed from the Rails project.

I've written about this a couple times on here but big-picture, anything with restrictive licenses will have a really hard time gaining traction in tech, at least right now

Edit: Heres a link to more details about the Ruby issue I mentioned above, and more discussion about license from when all that went down