No one owes him anything.
Who said otherwise? Why do you feel compelled to set up a strawman?
It may not matter to the GPL'd code's author whether this guy wants to use it in his own code or not.
That's absolutely true. But it may matter, so it's a great thing for the guy to say "if you do this, I can't use your code." Unless you don't believe in freedom of speech.
There are lots of reasons for writing code.
Sure, and I don't want to discourage anybody from writing code, and if you feel you need to use the GPL to write code, that's great -- do it!
It's (As they say, write your own code) absolutely not a stupid line.
No, it really is. At least in the context you are using it. You don't tell it to users. You're telling it to people who are already writing their own code.
The guy who GPL'd the code wrote it so he can do what he wants with it. That is his right.
Sure it's his right; same as it's the right (free speech and all) of the other guy to say that, for him, that makes the code unusable. "Write your own code" is not an attempt to address the pros and cons of different positions -- it's merely an attempt to shut the argument down.
Surely this other developer can write his own code too?
Exactly. That's what he's doing. And that's part of how LLVM and Toybox come about. And that's why it's stupid to say "write your own code." He's already writing his own fucking code.
Of course GPL'd people don't use that line with end users. After all they are free to use the software however they see fit. That's what the GPL says.
Ah. So the only reason you aren't snarky to end-users is because you're blindly following the religion of the license. Awesome.
As for toybox, llvm, etc. Good for them. Competition is a good thing. LLVM rejuvenated the stagnant GCC project. As for busybox vs toybox, toybox certainly is the better choice if the company doesn't know how to comply with the GPL or is too lazy to do so.
Hey, something we can agree on!
For too long companies thought open source, particularly "free software" mean public domain. It does not, regardless of license.
But this is a strawman in the current context. The upstream poster obviously doesn't believe that. He's not asking to use GPLed software in a way inconsistent with the license. He's telling you that he won't be able to use your software if you use that license, because he won't use it in violation of the license.
There are obligations under copyright law for all source code licenses, even proprietary ones like MS's royalty-free runtime redistribution licenses.
And this is a strawman, too. When somebody says, "if you use this license, I can't use the code" that is a data point, not an indication they are a criminal. Quite the opposite.