Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean its a no go for a company to go away with the work of others without giving credit beside naming? Strange world we are living in ...
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.
You say the GPLv3 is too aggressive on requirements around patent defense, but the Apache 2.0 is okay? The Apache 2.0 license requires a patent grant. How do they differ in the patent grant?
I'd speculate that for many companies the GPLv3 is too strong in its copy-left stance, by disallowing Tivoization.