I think the GPLv3 is more widely feared than understood. Most of the objections raised in the flamewars come from misunderstandings of its terms (e.g. the belief that it forbids encryption or it has patent anti-retaliation clauses worse than the Apache license), or from objections to early drafts of it. For example, the Linux devs refused to upgrade to GPLv3 after reading an early draft, and never reconsidered the question after the final draft was out.

And yeah, I would consider what happened to Jobs to be "pwning". He was trying very hard to not have to give gcc any source code, and he failed. If he was happy with the GPL, we would have seen more contributions to gcc after that, but they never happened again.