The rise of non-copyleft licenses proves that the only freedom most people care about is their wallet's.
Most GPL software won't survive its authors, even Linux kernel remains to be seen when Linus et al are gone, and it gets taken over by newer generations VC driven.
non-copyleft free-software licenses like the bsd license or the 'mit license' provide plenty of freedom in stallman's sense; you can study, copy, modify, and redistribute what they cover. when you're talking about people who only get wallet freedom, you're talking about free-tier proprietary licenses, shareware, free-for-noncommercial-use licenses, illegally copied software, that kind of thing. and while certainly there are lots of people using tinkercad or pirated windows, obviously those ecosystems don't have the vitality of blender, netbsd, and linux
Apparently most people care more about being able to make a living out of selling software, as supermarkets are quite bad at taking Github stars, while others rather not pay for the work of others.
There is no reason those barons can't make money on top of AGPLv3 software too, its easy to comply with if they thought anyone would bother to enforce the license.
Also, if you have a desirable app that they want to make money off, they have the ability to just reimplement it from scratch, or make a protocol-compatible equivalent, so the license does not matter in the slightest to them.
Most GPL software won't survive its authors, even Linux kernel remains to be seen when Linus et al are gone, and it gets taken over by newer generations VC driven.