> There isn't a similar degree of legal risk with MPL 2.0, nor with non-copyleft licenses (which is the subject of this subthread, not proprietary licenses)
There is a similar degree of legal risk with the overwhelming majority of licenses in use. Yes, using exclusively permissively-licensed software would let you avoid this particular risk - but given that essentially no-one (BSD advocates are, if anything, less scrupulous about avoiding proprietary software than GPL advocates - you rarely hear of BSD-land pushing firmware into a separate nonfree repository or the like) does that, it's clearly not a risk many people care much about.
Is your position that the FSF is wrong? If so, why trust the licenses that the same FSF wrote?
In general, businesses acquire commercial licenses for proprietary software, which is a kind of derisking.