The ideological position is the whole point of the GPL, after all. If you're using someone else's labor, it's only fair they're allowed to dictate the terms of how you're allowed to use it.
And they are, that's what choosing a licence is all about. In case of MIT/ISC/BSD/WTFPL licensed software, this someone else just decided to dictate a lot less than he could have.
If companies can make proprietary forks, I can make a GPLv3 fork. Best of all, no company can take my changes and make them proprietary. And if the maintainers want to merge my changes, they've got to relicense to GPL.
I mean, you’re free to do that, but taking pride in it sure feels odd to me.
License choice is a political choice, and it's not a coincidence that corporate-friendly licenses are usually on projects that have a strict vision and reject outside changes.
I've got the features I want, in the way that I want them. If you want to use them, you're free to switch — for some of my projects, tenthousands of people have done so.
This whole thread is about complaining/supporting this attitude - not about criticizing those who simply chose the GPL as their license.