It certainly does. If you are writing software as a complete non-profit, than liberal licensing is fine.
However, if you are trying to make money, not copylefting is suicide. If you spend money on software you use in production, simply giving it away for free means the competition can use it. Now, lets say its a liberal license. They can just write small amounts of proprietary code, and sell something you do not have. If its copyleft, they have to re-share that code, so they can't take any advantages over you. You still have the advantage as the company who knows the product best.
It tries to solve a problem that doesn't really exist; many companies actively
contribute to non-copyleft projects without needing a mandate from RMS.
At the same time, few of these programs get as much paid work. Most companies prefer Linux, and thats because it gets most of the funding. If anything, GNU and Linux have won out for this reason. The only time people use FreeBSD is for people who need a better networking stack than linux currently offers, such as Netflix.
Facebook, however, instead of moving to FreeBSD is offering a large bounty for anyone who can write an improved Linux networking stack to match FreeBSD. Instead of moving to FreeBSD.