I use to write all my software under AGPL for several years, such as some of the most popular jQuery plugins at the time (2006-2010); however I found that because of AGPL, people would just plagiarise the software as MIT instead, or just ignore the AGPL clauses; so rather than using the more restrictive yet more popular and original library, they would just rewrite it as a more permissive library, or just disregard the restrictions.
One case was it was common for my AGPL licensed and free jQuery plugins to be repackaged then sold as paid software under different names by bad actors.
Through 2010-2015 I decided to just MIT everything in response, as I was tired of seeing my work plagiarised, as I figured people will just reverse engineer anyway, so let it at least be my original work that is available to everyone to consolidate effort.
However, then big players would use my software, and I’d only get a few people donating a few dollars back, despite the maintenance burden becoming a full-time gig. Billions of installs a month should be worth more than a few dollars a month in returns.
In the end, I realised that people (such as companies) who hold secrets win, as they have a playbook that the 100% open-source/transparent people don’t. That secret keepers are a superset of the honest.
So unless you have significant barriers to entry, it may be more productive for people to just reverse engineer / reproduce your original effort: a blue ocean becoming a red ocean.
This has actually been formalised in game theory; that unless incentives and disincentives are calibrated then the more adaptive people win: https://ncase.me/trust/