This whole thread came about from a project writing its own non‐GPL code from scratch, and GPL fans subsequently complaining about it.

Plenty of GPL fans try to convince others to choose the same license, almost always implying that the GPL is the only moral/ethical choice (Stallman himself being the most ardent believer of this stance). They often even insist that the GPLv2 is not actually a moral choice anymore, given the evils of TiVoization.

This whole thread is about complaining/supporting this attitude - not about criticizing those who simply chose the GPL as their license.

While some non-copyleft fans cry in public how imoral the corporations are by abusing their work and then try to create anti-big-corp licenses.

What you’re implying is a fault exclusive to “non‐copyleft fans” happens in copyleft‐licensed projects too, like MongoDB, which was AGPL before it decided to switch to an even more restrictive license to counter hosting service companies.

Except the copyleft‐licensed projects have the legal means to prosecute, if they so wish to do so.

They do not - AWS was fully compliant with Mongo's AGPL license, and no one disputed that.

Sure, each side has its own misguided preachers. The point is to make fun of all of them, not to say that one side is better than the other.

A: "This is why I don't use GPL" B: "Yes, you shouldn't have to take an ideological position just to publish some code" C: "But the ideological position is the whole point of GPL" D: "but the ideological position is not the whole point of writing code." C: "Then don't use GPL code?" D: ".... exactly?"