>Neither is true, and this hokey 'user rights' notion is just a thinly veiled justification for a paternalistic communist view of open source collaboration, in which you want to control not only your own code, but the code that other people write, too.
No, this makes no sense. The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this, the main goal of it is to ensure that all users have equal control over the software. I don't know know how you draw the conclusion that the GPL only benefits the author, as the author loses most if not all of the (unjust) powers granted by copyright by publishing under the GPL.
No, this makes no sense. The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this, the main goal of it is to ensure that all users have equal control over the software. I don't know know how you draw the conclusion that the GPL only benefits the author, as the author loses most if not all of the (unjust) powers granted by copyright by publishing under the GPL.