The arguments can get unfortunate, yeah. With copyright (unlike patents), when I offer some code under some conditions, to first order I haven't subtracted any

The arguments can get unfortunate, yeah. With copyright (unlike patents), when I offer some code under some conditions, to first order I haven't subtracted anything from you -- you're free to ignore my code, maybe write your own. This isn't so different from offering you a banana for a buck, or a free bench in the park provided it carries a memorial plaque to my grandfather. I used to default to the MIT license, basically saying "just don't be a dick about the authorship or the non-warranty". Over the years many companies, like Apple, incorporated this sort of software into platforms and products that circumscribe my freedom -- products that I "own" but can't legally control. The GPL (especially v3) is a compact of people building an alternative to this locked-down world. Closed platforms seem to me a much greater, and increasing, encroachment on our freedom in practice than the inability to legally incorporate GPL code into closed software. Both of these restrictions, closed-only platforms and open-only code, are things someone is choosing to offer and you are choosing whether or not to use -- I don't see a difference re: positive or negative rights, technically. (But I'm not super-interested in rights-centric political theory.)