Or who code for the Xbox, Sony, Apple or Nintendo platforms, where you can't turn off the DRM on your binary, so can't use GPLed code in your project even if you release the entire project as source/art/whatever.
Copyleft tries to discourage closed platforms. As such, you wouldn't expect Copyleft-ists to support those platforms by making developing for them easier/cheaper.
They give you the carrot of free code; the stick is the viral nature of the license. Expecting to reap the fruit without giving anything is best left to spoiled brats, not clear thinking developers.
In fact, the FSF proudly claim that by keeping some libraries GPLed, instead of LGPLed, they caused some software that used those libraries become FOSS, where it wouldn't be released as such had those libraries been licensed under a more permissive license.
PS You can not distribute GPLed software for Nintendo's platforms not just because it would go against the GPL, but also because it would also go against Nintendo's SDK license, which prohibits use of FOSS with their code. See: http://sev-notes.blogspot.com/2009/06/gpl-scummvm-and-violat...
You can use most libraries on Nintendo, just not the GPL, because you have to release source code that is nintendo IP.
I'm happy you've decided I'm a spoiled brat when I give back fixes, libraries and presentations all the time, and this includes several Linux kernel drivers.
Either way, the GPL is intentionally restrictive, in part to thwart these platforms you do not like, so perhaps we should label it so to be forthright and honest with developers so they don't find out thousands of dollars later in some GPL violation suit? Perhaps "Restrictive to persuade others to do software our way"? Or just "Restrictive"?
Software was better before source was hidden away. While the LGPL has gone far (and I contend the Linux kernel is far closer to the LGPL than pure GPL), the GPL is still a bit too idealistic to fit the practical nature of some projects.
I've stated earlier that I'm more of a fan of the BSD license than of the GPL.
But no matter what philanthropic tasks you or I may have done, in software or otherwise, I don't feel as if others should make their code available to us under my preferred license.
Therefore, unlike some commenters here, I don't bitch when I can't use a piece of code due to its license, or go on tirades about how people release their own work under a license not to my liking, even if I think they are choosing the wrong license.
I'm happy all of this is your opinion, but I haven't done any of those things
I just say "restrictive" is a fair description of the Apple appstore, Sony's Approval process of the PS3 game catelog, and the GPL, and labeling it as such is a worthwhile service vs permissive licences that almost everyone can use the code of.
For a service such as github, which is about social coding, it's okay to point out some people being idealistic and somewhat slightly less inclined to share.
