I didn't say GPL-like licenses purport to attack copyright; I said they purport to attack control over users. And yet they do control users. Take a look at clauses 2a) and 2c) of the GPL. Annoying restrictions that are totally unnecessary -- if the goal is sharing software, anyway.

That's without even getting into the requirement to provide source code. Care to tell me what's "free" about the fact that if I add a couple printfs for debugging, recompile, and give the result to someone to test, I have to give them the entire changed source code? Or if I provide 100 KB binaries of someone's program for convenience, I need to also provide the 3 MB source tarball, even though it's readily available on a couple dozen websites?

Let's talk about the virality. Several people who weren't satisfied with the extra pointless restrictions (see above) of the GPL have made their own super copyleft sharing licenses. The FSF says I can't link these people's libraries with their GPL'd programs. Why not? Both of the licenses are "free", right? Or does the FSF deserve a monopoly on licenses because, I don't know, God's on their side or something?