GPL and copyleft further a cause. It's primarily for increasing user freedom. User freedom isn't developer freedom. It's everyone's freedom, indirectly. You're free to disagree with its agenda. But recognize it as a cause.

Other causes seem to be respected or at least understood. No one, for instance, is surprised to see that save-the-whales advocates try to save the whales. They recognize their cause. They may disagree with their cause. They may question why it's a worthy cause. They may think it's a counterproductive cause. Maybe they ultimately love the taste of whale. They may disagree with semantics. That's inevitable. It isn't helpful, however, to exhibit (or feign) ignorance of the nature and motivations that would understand it as a cause. Unfortunately, that's a common habit when it comes to those who argue against GPL. GPL isn't for everyone. It's that simple. For developers who do feel that GPL speaks to their goals, I raise a glass. When possible, I use their software and develop in kind. Why? I agree with that cause.

> Stallman believes that linking against a DLL constitutes a derived work that would be subject to the GPL's copyleft nature.

Basic software dependencies, with few exceptions, are subject to GPL. Why would anyone expect otherwise?