> The only people who want to "control code" are proprietary companies. Copyleft and the GPL is a rejection of this ...
So copyleft/GPL licensing isn't an attempt to 'control' code? Despite the fact that this is exactly what they do?
> ... the main goal of it is to ensure that all users have equal control over the software.
The users already have the choice to use open-source software vs. proprietary software. If they want to have "equal control" over the software, all they have to do is make the choice to only use open-source 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.
The author enters into a quid-pro-quo arrangement by which they get access to other people's code under terms equal to their own, and they're free to relicense their own code for whatever commercial use they want. It's an attempt to create a communistic shared ownership of code.
So copyleft/GPL licensing isn't an attempt to 'control' code? Despite the fact that this is exactly what they do?
> ... the main goal of it is to ensure that all users have equal control over the software.
The users already have the choice to use open-source software vs. proprietary software. If they want to have "equal control" over the software, all they have to do is make the choice to only use open-source 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.
The author enters into a quid-pro-quo arrangement by which they get access to other people's code under terms equal to their own, and they're free to relicense their own code for whatever commercial use they want. It's an attempt to create a communistic shared ownership of code.