The GPL, from a practical standpoint, is the opposite of normal copyright. Particularly, while the GPL does happen to use copyright law, its effect is the oppos

The GPL, from a practical standpoint, is the opposite of normal copyright. Particularly, while the GPL does happen to use copyright law, its effect is the opposite--instead of taking away consumers' rights, it adds to consumers' rights. The GPL is really a stop-gap measure. It cleverly turns copyright law against itself, and manages to use an existing legal framework to achieve a completely different end. However, it would be even better if it did not have to exist and all code was always open source. The whole free software movement is about not having software protected by copyright or even implicitly protected by being closed-source: it's the software that has to be free, in the sense of freedom. In short, while the GPL does use copyright, it's just an implementation detail. The actual effects are the opposite--it uses copyright law to neuter copyrights so that the users' freedom is always preserved.