This is why I'm so glad that I work in a closed monorepo now. There is no package management, only build tooling.

I find myself nodding along to many of the technical and organizational arguments. But I get lost in the licensing discussion.

If it is a cultural problem that people insist on giving things away for free (and receiving them for free), then viral licenses can be very helpful, not fundamentally pernicious.

Outside of the megaprojects, my mental model for GPL is similar to proprietary enterprise software with free individual licenses. The developer gets the benefits of open projects: eyeballs, contributors, adoption, reputational/professional benefits, doing a good deed (if that motivates them) while avoiding permissively giving everything away. The idea that it's problematic that you can't build a business model on their software is akin to the "forced charity" mindset—"why did you make something that I can't use for free?"

If you see a GPL'd bit of code that you really want to use in your business, email the developers with an offer of $X,000 for a perpetual commercial license and a $Y,000/yr support contract. Most are not so ideologically pure to refuse. It's a win-win-win: your business gets the software, the developers don't feel exploited, noncommercial downstream users can enjoy the fruits of open software, and everybody's contributed to a healthier attitude on open source.