I actually generally see just the opposite - even automakers, who are traditionally stalwarts about anything, are now starting to use GPL software in cars.
"which is why there is so much work being invested into LLVM/Clang"
This is a weird opinion, that i've seen a few times.
This is not why LLVM was/is chosen, AFAIK. LLVM was/is chosen for greater control over destiny, a better platform, and a better community.
If LLVM was GPL there is exactly one company that would theoretically stop contributing (admittedly, it's been about 2 months since i calculated the list of companies that contributed in the past year). I doubt that would actually happen, too (mainly because I asked once if they would)
I was just at an LLVM social this evening, and not a single person there worked for a company that chose LLVM because of "massive commercial pressure against the GPL".
Apple was frustrated they couldn't get what they wanted out of GCC, and were getting patches and designs constantly rejected. This, combined with getting control over their destiny, and having serious needs for a modular compiler frontend for XCode (and their design for a compiler server/etc for GCC got shot down), plus Chris demonstrating good performance results + trajectory, led to them choosing LLVM.
But what do I know - I was there, in both communities, talking to the people who were involved in these decisions.
Realistically, if the SVP/VP in charge of Apple's developer tools had decided GCC was still the way to go, they would be working on GCC, GPLv3 policy or not.
Policies are not an end unto themselves.
All of this is completely orthogonal to the freezing of the GCC version. They could get what they wanted out of it in the pre-GPLv3 versions, given their future plans were LLVM based anyway, so they didn't make an exception for GCC when they banned GPLv3.
Of course, I'm not going to claim that apple didn't do other things more for licensing reasons, which a lot of can be explained by the desire to be able to share code between OS X and IOS in some places (and eventually, in a lot of places), and GPLv3 would have disastrous effects if they messed up. They calculated the eng cost, came up with "we have good alternatives, and can rewrite the rest", and did that, and banned GPLv3. However, they were making exceptions for years for certain pieces of software already. So if you had chosen any other example than LLVM, i'd probably agree with you. LLVM is just not a great example of "commercial pushback against GPL".
Apple's dropping of Samba would be a good example, since that is directly the reason they dropped Samba.
[1] One of my GCC friends walked out of this presentation complaining that he was selling them a bill of goods. Of course, he turned out to be wrong, but ...
The conclusion I've drawn from it is that GPLv3 was a significant driver in the decision to seek out and drive forward a non-GPL compiler project. I didn't say it was the only factor, but I stand by my conclusion that it must have been a significant one.
But I'm conflicted about GPL vs Apache (or BSDish) in the sense that I'm getting the message that I have to bend over backwards just a little bit further before somebody, somewhere might be willing to use my software, maybe. Free isn't enough. I also have to let them fork it, keep it proprietary, wrap their own brand around it, before maybe they might consider using it.
That said, I really want people to use it, and of course help me hack on it. But I'm conflicted.
My impression is that the second list exists solely because there exists GPLv2 licensed software with no viable alternatives to it. Unfortunately, your project is not one of them. It's your project so you can do whatever you want, but GPL is an obstacle to adoption in industry.
I own open source licensing policy at one very large company (which doesn't really work like you suggest), and am in contact with about 50-100 other open source counsel on a regular basis, and the only software most ban is AGPL (and a few other licenses which aren't talking about here, as they are wildly uncommon).
Most companies also do not treat GPLv2 and GPLv3 differently from a licensing perspective, only those that ship embedded devices do.
At least, this is my experience. I'm curious where yours is coming from.
Perhaps you work with companies where adopting technology stacks is more of a top-down decision where legal counsel is always involved. In those situations, GPL doesn't pose a particular barrier because all open source software faces that same barrier. But some companies give more autonomy to their developers, and in those cases there's a difference in overhead when managing GPL compliance.
The second change from GPLv2 to GPLv3 is the DRM clause, or the "you can't use a technical method to bypass the legal requirements". Again, only really relevant if the company uses DRM, but would be willing to use GPLv2. That is a very short list.
