My problem with the GPL philosophy is that I can't find the mechanism that results in more general access to code in the world, when releasing your software as GPL versus BSD/MIT.
What determines what's out there in the world, the decision to release source versus simply doesn't come down to "well I can use this GPL code as part of my project if I also GPL it, so I guess I'll share my code too." The decisions about whether to release code are made entirely independently of what libraries or code to reuse, and there's basically no code out there that's so special and unique that it could flip people one way or the other.
The decision to release code along with the software is made due to other considerations, so claiming that GPL results in more code access seems impossible to defend, to me.
What determines what's out there in the world, the decision to release source versus simply doesn't come down to "well I can use this GPL code as part of my project if I also GPL it, so I guess I'll share my code too." The decisions about whether to release code are made entirely independently of what libraries or code to reuse, and there's basically no code out there that's so special and unique that it could flip people one way or the other.
The decision to release code along with the software is made due to other considerations, so claiming that GPL results in more code access seems impossible to defend, to me.