>The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit.
Many do. Any many of them realize they didn't actually want the GPL, they just picked the license they had heard of the most. I don't see what this has to do with the discussion of gcc being limited technically because the GPL is not enough to sufficiently hinder people from writing proprietary tools.
>That's really important distinction that people don't realize about the GPL - it's designed to protect the rights of the END USERS
That is an artificial distinction created to try to justify the newspeak meaning of "freedom" where it is defined to mean "imposes restrictions". Developers are users.
The question of whether developers should be able to restrict freedom of non-developers is the question of whether some users should be able to restrict the freedom of other users. This is an ethical (subjective) question.
Put another way, should landowners be allowed the freedom of having serfs or indentured servants? Not allowing them to do so is restricting the freedom of some people (the freedom to own serfs). But allowing them to do so is restricting the freedom of other people (the freedom to be... well, free human beings).
As a society, we believe restricting the freedom to be human beings is ethically abhorrent, so we have no qualms (anymore) about restricting people's freedom to own serfs.
Maybe you see non-free software as ethically abhorrent, the way slavery is, maybe you don't. But that is the axiom that the free software movement (and the GPL) is based on - to understand free software, you have to understand that principle, even if you disagree with it.
You are just repeating the same old red herring. Actually free software does not restrict anyone's freedom. I understand GNU/communists are insane, it is not a problem of understanding, but one of dishonesty. Pretending public domain software (actually free) restricts "end users" freedom is a lie.
Many do. Any many of them realize they didn't actually want the GPL, they just picked the license they had heard of the most. I don't see what this has to do with the discussion of gcc being limited technically because the GPL is not enough to sufficiently hinder people from writing proprietary tools.
>That's really important distinction that people don't realize about the GPL - it's designed to protect the rights of the END USERS
That is an artificial distinction created to try to justify the newspeak meaning of "freedom" where it is defined to mean "imposes restrictions". Developers are users.