Also note that the document never takes into account the needs of the eventual user of the appropriately licensed software, but only ever its (or other) developer(s).
As a user, I definitely prefer to use a copylefted program. This means that I am guaranteed to enjoy the four software freedoms; in particular, I can look at how the program works and I can change its behavior, or hire a programmer to change it.
A non-copylefted program, however, may be distributed by some middleman that deprives me of this freedom. Even if the original developer of the program shared it under a free-software licence, it can be re-packaged as a non-free wrapper. This is impossible with copyleft licenses. Thus, even if copyleft "imposes" some mild restrictions to developers, it is certainly very liberating to users! Notice that the only "restriction" imposed to developers is that they cannot re-package a copylefted program so that it becomes un-free.
Okay. Good for you. As a user who likes to combine software ideas, I don't want my work or inspiration to be tainted by a work that would try to restrict my work in the future.
You are free to enjoy what your freedoms and I am free to enjoy mine.
Just because you don't actively develop something doesn't mean that you won't find the economy and wider options and market forces it provides useful.
> The distinction is 100% about what a future developer can do or not do.
I pointed out that this was incorrect.
> But I don't think they should require other software creators to release under the same license.
So you think end-user-hostile software is fine. I guess we disagree.