Relevant because the claim "it protects the end-user" is bunk.
The exclusive job of a copyright license is to permit distribution.
Well, distribution isn't something that end-users do, it's something that developers do.
A developer can be an end user. An end user may wish to have a developer make changes for them. They may even wish to redistribute it. Your definition of "end user" is excessively narrow.
Therefore if you're license doesn't permit distribution in some cases, you're only restricting the freedoms of developers.
Read what I wrote above, and realize that what you say is completely wrong.
This is, by definition, non-free.
No. NO. The GPL guarantees that no middleman can take the sources, add something to it, and give only binaries to the end user. It ensures the freedom of the recipient to do as they wish with the software. It prevents you from intervening and stopping them.
I see this same, terrible argument so often. I'm sure there's a nice rebuke of it somewhere on the FSF/GNU project's website.
I'm talking about an EULA, not a copyright license. An EULA is supposed to restrict what the end-user is legally allowed to do with their own program on their own computer (but they're not making any agreement in return, it's only a promise, and should be legally unenforceable).
And this is relevant how?
A copyright license is legally incapable of restricting what an end-user is doing, it can only permit (re)distribution, nothing more.
Correct, but relevant how?
You don't just "close off the sources", once you've published source code, it's like, always out there.
Except if a middleman comes through, changes it, and gives the binaries to other people. That code is not out there. And it's that sort of action that the GPL pushes back against.
What point are you trying to make?
If you want to respect the rights of end users, then, you know, don't include a licensing agreement.
What? If you don't include a license then no one can do anything with it.
It's not as if the GPL has a legal monopoly on this paradigm.
The GPL is the only one (off the top of my head) that prevents a middleman from stepping in and closing the sources on its way to the end user.
What exactly are you getting at?
the equally crony capitalism of the copyleft "free" licenses
(not actually free by any definition, it's still restrictive and subjects you to lawsuits for failing to do any number of things)
Whereby "restrictive" means "forced to respect the rights of end users" and where "lawsuits" means "usually settle once the license is complied with."
Of course, people releasing Free Software should just expect to have their license violated while proprietary software vendors shouldn't, right?
So if I understand you right:
Why shouldn't I use the GPLv3?
Well, if you want to patent troll or abuse your users with platform level lockouts and DRM, you can't.
You can be replaced by this computer.