GPL code is copyrighted. GPL is not my favorite OS license, but all FOSS licenses are also copyrighted by at least 1 person or organization. The only exception would be something in the public domain (which is technically not a license).

You can enforce copyright on GPL code just as well as with proprietary code. You just need to take the steps to do so.

No you don't. There's no point copyrighting something if you don't intend to enforce your copyright.

You don't have to copyright it. Anything you produce us automatically copyrighted. What people forget is that the GPL is a way to get around the default lack of distribution and replication rights in ordinary copyright.

Contrary to popular belief, GPL is not free software. You can't add restrictions to something and call it "free as in freedom". A truly "free as in freedom" license is one you can't violate (BSD).

People can and have violated the BSD license, so if you believe that free licenses are only those with no restrictions then the BSD license is not free either. The GPL conforms to all the popular consensus definitions of software freedom (the FSF's free software definition, the OSI's open source definition, and Debian's DFSG); if your concept of "free software" is different from all of those maybe you would communicate more effectively by using a different term.

Well, he probably meant WTFPL License [0] - it's difficult to violate that one. :)

[0] http://www.wtfpl.net/

Is a free society one the laws of which you can’t break? No, that’s called anarchy.

A free society can have laws, and a free license can have conditions.

A free society is one where people don't have restrictions. And guess what GPL has.

So in your view of a free society I should be free from restrictions on killing other people?

Well, both Copyright Holders and GPL Licensors want to enforce their license. But guess what. Piracy is a coin with two sides.. Thousands (millions?) of companies around the world use illegally obtained copies of software to make money. A dozen companies also violate the GPL. I don't understand what makes GPL so special and why it should be protected more than (C)..

> I don't understand what makes GPL so special and why it should be protected more than (C)..

Some people care less about whether the law has been violated and more about whether the source code has been made available.

Well, philosophically, does anybody builds nowdays using the win XP source code to make profit? How about the Linux kernel?

I'd argue one of these has an approach that actively benefits humanity and the other one is a footnote in history.