I am aware, of course. But it is still better than copyrighted proprietary software, I think.

So a "Free" license that has literally no legal protection from abuse is better than the mere existence of proprietary software?

This makes zero sense. The companies that are currently publishing copyrighted proprietary software would then be free to take the GPL software, make improvements for their own purposes and distributed the compiled binaries and make profits without providing the improvements back.

As a proponent of permissive licenses I have no qualms about my software being enhanced and used by others without giving back those improvements - but the whole point of the GPL is to prevent that - so a GPL without copyright may as well be MPL or BSD or MIT.

Sorry, maybe I was being unclear, because it isn't quite what I meant. I meant that that I think having no copyright at all is better than copyright enforcing proprietary software. Yes, you still would be able to distribute compiled binaries without providing the improvements back (and I think permissive licenses (I use public domain myself, rather than copyright) are much simpler than the GPL), but someone can try to reverse it (or to do other things with it) and they can't arrest them for that (although anyone can still make complaints about what the company is doing, to give them a bad reputation; people could still complain about anything they wanted to complain about). I know what is the point of the GPL, and I like that point, but think it is complicated, and I do not like copyright.

Of course if I write a program I would like that others who make modifications (public) that they would also contribute those source codes too, but I do not like to put in legal obstructions, so you should have freedom rather than having too many laws and obstructions.