I am familiar with the various other things that are hosted on the GNU website. I'm referring to the actual authoritative legal text that gets copied alongside all the source code that you use, not any other essays on the subject. That text poses a different story than those essays. I'm also not sure why this is being brought up now, as the GP post you made acknowledged that the GPL was not even accomplishing that goal.

Edit: Since the license itself is vague on what those "social issues" actually are aside from sharing and changing the program, in my experience projects will tend to use it for whatever they feel like. Sometimes this is aimed towards community building but often isn't. To me the community building aspect mostly happens outside of these legal decisions, for example: closed source programs can have a community too, sometimes that community might even be hosted in the same places such as github.

> I am familiar with the various other things that are hosted on the GNU website. I'm referring to the actual authoritative legal text that gets copied alongside all the source code that you use, not any other essays on the subject.

you know that in case of actual litigation, judges will not only look at the actual text, but also at the intent surrounding it, right ?

Sure, but the "intent" in question would be the intent of the copyright holder that chose to use the GPL. My point is that the intent in a lot of cases is NOT to do what is being suggested.