Quite the contrary. For users of software, there's no better license than strong copyleft licenses.

> with GPL, you do not have ownership over any derived work that you produce

This is false. You are free to produce derived works and keep them to yourself, or even to your organization. No need to share source with anyone.

If/When you share the derived work, whomever you distribute the derived work to, they are now a user. You have to give to that user the same rights you got: full source code and GPL-provided rights. You do not have to give those out to "everyone", only to those to whom you distribute your derived works.

> This is a weapon to allow big corporations to sue small indie developers and startups who are trying to compete with them. The balance of power is asymmetric. Only corporations have the money to legally enforce GPL licenses

If not via the law, how can rights possibly be enforced?

Also, note that the GPL has been enforced — for better or worse — by individuals against far richer corporations. This is, of course, only because of the fear of the law.

> Also, the creator of the software is allowed to keep their own derivative work private (because they have copyright) but no one else can (everyone else is bound by copyleft).

As I said above, this is false. Your changes are yours, and you retain copyright on them. Code you didn't write, of course, is not under your copyright; but you still have the full rights granted to you by the GPL to do with them privately as you please.

I'm not saying GPL is wrong but it's definitely less permissive/free than an MIT license.

But they _did_ share it with others! They distributed the application, which used GPLd code, so they need to abide by the rules.

Also in my first comment, when I said "work" I was talking about the source code, not the software. It's a given that software is meant to be used by users.

Even if it is used by the author/modifier in private? "others" != "everyone".

In your example, Wix could have kept the usage of GPL code internal to their organization and not have to publicly release anything. If they allowed others (i.e., outside their organization) to use the derived work, they'd have to provide the same users with the source code. Of course, in their case, they allowed the public to use the derived work, so anyone who used their service should be given the source.

> Also in my first comment, when I said "work" I was talking about the source code, not the software

I don't see how this changes anything.

Also, note that the GPL uses "work" to refer to the software (and to other forms of copyrightable works, as applicable) in both source material form as well as the compiled and linked forms.

----

Judging from your views expressed here regarding the GPL, I strongly suggest you talk to a copyright lawyer, or at least read what copyright lawyers say the GPL and/or copyleft is: https://copyleft.org/guide/

> the creator of the software is allowed to keep their own derivative work private (because they have copyright) but no one else can (everyone else is bound by copyleft).

This is simply wrong. Please read the actual license text.

Such projects won't merge a patch without the correct paperwork. It can be done, and is.

An appropriate analogy would be question is a country free (as in respecting freedoms) if you are not allowed to murder people? Most people would say yes. And it could be even argued that it is more free than country that does allow murdering people, because the limitation on murdering empowers people to exercise their (other) freedoms more freely.

Note that I'm don't fully agree on RMS' stance on the matter here, but I think I understand it reasonably well.

“The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.” This is a restriction on usage and thus conflicts with freedom 0. The restriction might be unenforcible, but we cannot presume that. Thus, the license is nonfree.