You got what meets your needs. Surely, others too will find what meets their requirements. It might as well be GPL (or something elses). No big deal.
Before deciding to pull away from GPL, Haynie says Appcelerator surveyed some two dozen software vendors working within the same general market space. To his surprise, Haynie saw that only one was using a GPL variant. "Everybody else, hands down, was MIT, Apache, or New BSD," he says.
Adopting any of the existing licenses may be the only practical option. Writing your own license (you know what you'd like the terms to be) should have been tried.
"The proponents of GPL like to tell people that the world only needs one open source license, and I think that's actually, frankly, just a flat-out dumb position," says Mike Milinkovich, executive director of the Eclipse Foundation, one of the many organizations now offering an open source license with more generous commercial terms than GPL.
Never heard any of the GPL proponents say such a thing. BTW, GPL is not about Open Source. It is about Free Software.
Alternative licenses offer liberal code distribution terms (which means more revenue potential) and more clearly written licenses -- and they have eager and qualified developer communities, advocates say.
GPL does not stop you from making revenues. It just is more careful about freedom.
It will be a good idea to write a more clearly written license taking care of revenue potential