I don't particularly appreciate how a group of nerds from the 80s have some supposed interpretational sovereignty over what "free" software means. The added res

I don't particularly appreciate how a group of nerds from the 80s have some supposed interpretational sovereignty over what "free" software means. The added restrictions on the GPL don't make the software more "free" than BSD/MIT, and I don't like how this is falsely presented as additional user freedom while most users would never look inside the source code or make modifications to it. I prefer developers release their source code because they want to and not because an overengineered LICENSE.txt compels them. That looks more like free software to me. The GPL isn't that bad per se, but I don't like the notion of making a folder of textfiles more "free" by adding restrictions on its usage (by people). It feels contrary to that advertised user freedom. The GPL looks like the attributed freedom of that folder with some textfiles is more important than people's freedom. That is still fine for lots of use cases, but its whole framing by the FSF is what irks me.