No my entire argument depends on the FACT that GPL preserves end user rights which end users are not entitled to with permissive code and are not given with proprietary code. All your attempts to evade this point shows that you have no interest in any honest conversation.

This is not about end user choice, this is about end user rights. With GPL licenced code end users have the _right_ to the source code which created the _actual_ binary they recieve. They don't have to demand the source code, but it is their right, they don't have to examine, modify, run a resulting binary of their own, but it is their right.

These rights are NOT preserved with permissive licencing, and they are NOT granted by proprietary code.

You try to muddy the waters by saying that 'users' don't have to use proprietary code unless they want to, but again developers doesn't have to use GPL licenced code so that doesn't have anything to do with this at all.

Whenever you want to use someone else's code you are subject to their conditions, you sure see nothing wrong with setting conditions for using proprietary code (users can always say no), so by what logic do you think developers should not be allowed to set GPL conditions for their code?

Your communist rant makes you sound like some crazy right-wing extremist, you want to have the right to use other people's code in your proprietary projects, but the notion of other developers instead wanting access to code used in conjunction with theirs in return somehow strikes you as some oppressive communist scheme??? Seriously???

You seem to think open source developers somehow owe you code to use in a proprietary fashion, and if they don't provide it under such conditions they are 'communists who wants to control other people's code'. I can't quite understand people like you.