Actually, the ability to re-license has more to do with who owns the copyright than it has with what the license is. A problem with a lot of GPL and AGPL software is that the copyright holder is a single corporate entity that insists on a copyright transfer for every OSS contribution. Often the whole point of using the GPL or AGPL license by these companies is that they are so restrictive that their customers have an incentive to buy a commercial license.
Nothing wrong with that of course and a valid business model. But it can become a problem when they choose to switch license or withdraw their product from the OSS market entirely (like Elastic did this last year). OSS where the individual contributors retain their copyright are much more robust. For example, Linux will never change license. It would be a legal nightmare to do that. They'd be chasing tens of thousands of copyright owners for their permission, or in some cases their surviving relatives. Every single one of them would have the power to say no. It would probably be cheaper to build a completely new OS kernel from scratch than to do that. Some companies that take issue with the license conditions actually are doing that. It's probably a big reason why Google is working on Fuchsia for example.
A lot of Apache software has distributed copyright ownership. Particularly everything hosted by the Apache Foundation. Nothing wrong with that license. Great software. Has existed for decades, will continue to exist for centuries.
