I wholeheartedly disagree to your first two statements. I would guess that the GPL just prioritizes freedoms differently than you would prefer. Namely, that a

I wholeheartedly disagree to your first two statements. I would guess that the GPL just prioritizes freedoms differently than you would prefer. Namely, that access to the source code and the ability to fix bugs out-of-band of the original author is higher than your rights to fully commercialize and restrict access to the code, in the way that the BSD license allows. In a "wishing for infinite wishes" sort of way, the GPL is about removing the freedom to take away any more freedoms. So yes it is constricting in a sense but in a very targeted fashion. I will agree that it is complicated but that's a result of years of companies abusing loopholes and the nature of trying to cover every conceivable scenario. It's an old codebase but still the best we have. Practicality is never the consideration of an idealist and the GPL is definitely the product of an idealist. RMS has often appeared like a crazy old man but as time passes, he seems to be proven right more often than wrong. A consequence of idealism and the march of progress, maybe. You're of course well within your rights to choose a different way but your characterization of the GPL not being about freedom is a bit off the mark.