How so? "You are not allowed to use my work unless you agree to particular conditions that I care about".
In one case the condition is "I get paid", in the other "you have to contribute back your changes", but it's a similar underlying concept.
In one case the condition is "I get paid", in the other "you have to contribute back your changes", but it's a similar underlying concept.
In a legislative regime where all software is free, that goal is achieved without GPL so GPL isn't needed anymore; I get the permission to use, modify and redistribute all software as if I had received it with the GPL.
copyright doesn't mean "i get paid", it means "i get to withhold" (see all the out-of-print books, abandonware, etc).
GPL does not mean "you have to contribute back your changes" at all: "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLRequireSourc...
one is about taking access away (for whatever goal), the other is about taking that option away (for the benefit of users).