> It probably doesn't work this way (IANAL and more), but philosophically -- and rhetorically, here -- this should be pretty simple: If you don't respect the license, you should not be able to use the product.

Well I can ignore the GPL all I want and still use GPL software. There's nothing I can see in copyright law that prevents me from doing that. Microsoft and co conditioned people into thinking that they required permission to use software, but that's certainly not the case in software I use.

However if I want to do something that I can't do in copyright law (like give someone else a copy), I require permission from the copyright holder. That permission is pre-emptively given in the GPL. If I don't like those terms, that's fine, I can contact the copyright holder and attempt to negotiate other terms.

Funny, because that reminds me of GDPR. If you don't accept a sites business model, then I think you should be denied access from that product.

Funny? It's a reasonable sentiment.

I 100% agree that it is a reasonable sentiment. What I find funny is that I have seen lots of supporters here obout GDPRs right to content without supporting a websites business model of targeted advertising and now I am seeing a comment about how countries should follow a softwares copyleft laws or not be able to use it (the all or nothing approach that GDPR advocates seem to always complain about).