While reading this artical,
I found the author noticing this
"A GPL advocate sees a derived work as "his code" combined with some
"other code" in a package, and his concern is that the package always
be openable. "His code" always remains his code, and he sees any use or
distribution of the whole package as a kind of use or distribution of
his code. As a result, he feels justified in placing restrictions on
how a user may use or distribute the derived work, even though he
"owns" only a small part of the whole package. This is following the
philosophy of copyright and intellectual property, which, curiously, is
a favorite target of derision of these same people. A copyrighted work
can never be wholly owned by the user, it is only rented, and so
subject to control by the original creator."
Some thing i myself always advocate.
I own the code i wrote, period. No one else has any right to it but the rights i explicitly rented them out in return of some promises (to not use the code in other than gpl project).
So in that sense i always felt the whole philosophical way of advocating the openness of gpled project is needless.
We should be calling ourselves closed proprietary people. The only difference being we as modern business people see the value in other people's code lot more than the money we can make by keeping it from others.
We are no communists :D we are hard core selfish capitalists who don't care about anything but profit. And the way we make it is, by licensing our own creations with the very infrastructure capitalism created (copyright) to achieve access to the great resource pool.
Hell we are closed source people. and that good..... !!!!!
There is no free lunch after all.