Not that I care that much as I am mostly a commercial software user/dev, but as the world returns to the days of shareware and public domain, those that drove the carts back there will find out what "freedom" means.
Had Linux nor GCC happened, and we would all still being enjoying commercial UNIXes.
I'm not arguing against GPL and friends, I'm simply pointing out that less restriction = more freedom for the initial user in the sense that they have freedom to do more things and that this freedom does not transfer downstream. I'm also saying that not contributing back upstream is orthogonal to freedom.
I'm not sure why this is contentious: GPL adds a restriction that, eg, MIT does not -- that you must contribute back. MIT lets you choose if you want to or not, therefore it provides you more freedom. Sure, GPL adds this restriction to ensure that all users have an equal level of freedom. I am not making a value judgement here at all, nor am I saying that MIT (or whatever) is better than GPL as different people have different preferences, priorities or opinions.
Again, I was only pointing out the differences in freedom, not making a judgement about which one is better... different people have different opinions on this one, after all.
Had Linux nor GCC happened, and we would all still being enjoying commercial UNIXes.