I find it curious that people against paid software and supposedly proponents of open source software have no problem using and supporting tools that directly c

I find it curious that people against paid software and supposedly proponents of open source software have no problem using and supporting tools that directly copy paid software, such as that found in Octave, matplotlib, and Julia, which likely breaks licenses. For example, you will find algorithms in Julia directly copied from open source bits of MATLAB (at least that was several years ago). I make the assumption that Octave does the same, beyond the API copying. Isn't that against the supposed philosophy of GNU software? Am I missing something? I just don't understand how to reconcile blatantly copying tools, at least the APIs are copied, with the apparent philosophy of open source software, particularly GNU software. For example, from Octave's documentation: https://wiki.octave.org/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop#Will_you_change_the_license_of_the_Octave_libraries_for_me https://wiki.octave.org/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ&mobileactio...? They tell you what to do with your own software, but they are embarking on basically creating a free (as in price) version of paid, proprietary software. Even if there are not direct violations of MATLAB licensing or IP claims, it feels the two approaches are in conflict. This is an honest question, because it isn't clear to me what the resolution of this apparent conflict is. Maybe someone has some insight.