>Not completely. Proprietary modules and forks of both exist, so in the broadest sense they are not This is also true of GCC. Lots of organisations have privat

>Not completely. Proprietary modules and forks of both exist, so in the broadest sense they are not This is also true of GCC. Lots of organisations have private forks and the GPL allows that. More generally, if somebody offers 'compiler as a service' over the internet then the GPL becomes irrelevant and they could add as much private code to GCC as they wanted. The GPL only forces you to contribute back under a very specific and narrow set of criteria. Criteria that the majority of software being written in 2014 doesn't meet. The GPL is largely irrelevant to most software shops these days - they freely incorporate piles of GPL licensed code into proprietary closed source products. They can do so because most new software is internal to organisations or delivered as an internet service. The GPL was designed for a different world. Software freedom has been set back because of people clinging to the GPL as the final word in software freedom. Your kind of GPL centric propaganda results in young developers today thinking they are doing the world a favour by writing proprietary closed source web apps - because they are using FOSS GPL libraries, right? And targeting the 'open' web, right? Do you AGPL licence all the code you write, including website backends? Does your employer? If not you should probably take a close look at yourself and consider that maybe you are part of the 'problem' you are decrying.