I don't think the author of the GPL would agree with your telling of the origin of it. It was specifically designed to ensure code released under it would remain free, including any changes made to it by companies and other developers.
The preamble to GPL v1:
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it."
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html
To Google v Oracle, that was IIUC down to APIs usage being fair-use, not the code itself.
It's still widely used as a term, given the people diagnosed with it retain their diagnosis. There's also a lexical lacuna without it for "autistic, but close to neurotypical-presenting", so it fills a need there in a way "autism" and even "high functioning autism" don't.
The preamble to GPL v1: "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html
To Google v Oracle, that was IIUC down to APIs usage being fair-use, not the code itself.