Well, that's wonderful to hear!

If you're wondering what sort of issue being careless with licenses can cause, see the (in)famous case of Tivoization. GPL 3 was written partly to solve issues like this.

The Free Software Foundation explicitly forbade tivoization in version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
Wikipedia

Note how issue here is still subjective. Linux stays on GPL 2 and the people in charge are largely uninterested in planning a path forwards, or outright refuse to even consider it.

For a more recent example of how community/contributors and owner/company interest misalignment can make a huge mess, see the consequences of HashiCorp changing the Terraform license from MPL to BUSL. Relevant facts I'd like to note:

• This caused a large split in the community and with HC ("drama").
• This was only possible due to their CLA (Contributor License Agreement) requirement for contributors.
• This eventually resulted in the birth of OpenTofu, a fork of Terraform managed by the Linux Foundation.

Or, for a slightly funny case:

A while back I saw a project on GitHub licensed as CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. The developer was considering writing a guide for contributors, even though I'm pretty sure you can't fork and modify it to open a PR (popular way to offer contributions), because that'd break the ND clause (sharing derivatives). Were people supposed to e-mail patches straight to the developer? Who knows! There are people who are into that, such as some Linux Kernel folks.

And finally, here's what I thought was a very interesting take on what "free" means when talking about software licenses, touching upon obligations, rights and copyleft.

I'm trying to avoid opining too much, even though I can't help it and, really, it's inevitable. I hope these serve as entry points for further research, and that they help you form your own perspective on all this. And if you do happen to end up agreeing with me in the end... well, I obviously won't complain :^)