>A lot of tech industry doesn't seem to take FLOSS license violations very seriously.
devil's advocate
Why should they? The original point of the GPL was to be the anti-copyright, the copyleft. The original point was to prevent companies suing individual developers, not to be some sort of gotcha for developers to sue companies. GPL is a shield, not a sword. Why would a company care about using GPL code in their proprietary products? It's fair use. Oracle vs Google proved it. You have no rights over code you released for free, and nobody is going to side with you as a developer suing to protect those rights. Everyone sees it as a bait and switch.
I don't think the author of the GPL would agree with your telling of the origin of it. It was specifically designed to ensure code released under it would remain free, including any changes made to it by companies and other developers.
The preamble to GPL v1:
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html
To Google v Oracle, that was IIUC down to APIs usage being fair-use, not the code itself.
That isn't what happened in that court case, less what it "proved." Fair use is highly dependent on the specific details of the usage. Before it was ruled fair use, the specific kind of code in question in that case (headers/API definitions) was ruled, and long believed to be, ineligible for copyright.
Imagine explaining a soldier that they don't need to worry about being bashed to death with a shield because it a shield was designed to block blows.
Like the purpose for which the GPL was created is irrelevant to how it's being used, and people who are aware and desire to mitigate risks will be mindful of that.
devil's advocate
Why should they? The original point of the GPL was to be the anti-copyright, the copyleft. The original point was to prevent companies suing individual developers, not to be some sort of gotcha for developers to sue companies. GPL is a shield, not a sword. Why would a company care about using GPL code in their proprietary products? It's fair use. Oracle vs Google proved it. You have no rights over code you released for free, and nobody is going to side with you as a developer suing to protect those rights. Everyone sees it as a bait and switch.