In an otherwise great post about the GPL and its goals, Bradley Kuhn writes something that strikes me as a typical example of open-source political correctness that ultimately tarnishes the credibility of the community:
I'm disturbed by the notion that some believe the goal of the GNU GPL is to expand copyrightability and the inclusiveness of derivative works.
Come on, of course it's not the goal but that's what it does! The GNU GPL purposely extends copyrightability in both time (copyleft/derivatives) and space (assimilation/contagion) so that to foster the growth of GPL-covered code and to provide enough stability for nomadic communities to build upon it.
And yes by saying that there is a slight risk of propagating FUD but it is largely subsumed by the much greater goal of allowing people and companies to better understand open source and the GNU GPL. If we keep mincing the words, beating around the bush, it’s not going to help establish trust and credibility. Living with a license that most people don’t understand is hard enough without adding the fuzziness of rhetorical arguments.
To make an analogy, it reminds me of pro-choice and pro-life camps developing scientific arguments to prove their case as to when "real" life starts so that to fight or to advocate abortion; so wrong. Abortion is an ethical/moral/social issue, certainly not a scientific one. I'm pro-choice yet keeping in mind that abortion is also terminating a life. The day people are forgetting this they start accepting using it as a contraceptive method; so wrong again.
People are making dangerous or uncomfortable choices all the times but the day they forget about the true nature of those choices, the day they accept to loose themselves in the comfort of self-denial, they become the very efficient poster child of their opponents.
Like you (or so I'd hope) I think that "intellectual" and "property" is one of the worst associations man could ever make in a single sentence. Not because it’s bad to put an attribution or even a value on intellectual work but because fundamentally intellectual property doesn’t lend itself to any sort of limit. And if a property owned by my neighbor has no limits, no clear delineation, then it does infringe on my freedom. On everybody's freedom.
With the GPL, the cat is out of the bag:
Do you really think denying the very nature of the cat is going to help our credibility?