Copyright owner.
If you distribute your own work with GPL code included, that whole piece of work becomes under the GPL license. The Copyright owner still owns the copyright to their parts without the GPL code they didn't own? So there are supposed to be 2 versions, so far. AGPL is worse, that if you distribute it on intranet, your work combination with theirs (or snapshot for a term that I visualize better) that becomes under the GPL.
Ok, so maybe that could fly. However, why is it that, the other content owners within that GPL code have more rights, than the copyright owner who lost licensing rights of code forced to go under GPL? Here is the serious issue. That doesn't fly. It seems like the copyright owner is losing more rights than only licensing terms of their code distributed under that code combination! Other copyright owners are getting more copyright rights of code that wasn't theirs?
So, why do the other copyright owners who distribute dual licensed code between GPL and proprietary get to keep their code? If one owner has to give up their rights, so do they. Because they each owned proprietary code, and used it with GPL.
Either of the above, while one scenario if true is worse, is why there should be absolutely no GPL code in X server and X client, for example!
Another point is, if someone releases code under MIT, then someone else inserts that code into GPL, those owners don't lose their code to GPL, bc they distributed their work with MIT, which GPL took in. If that license doesn't work across the board both ways for all, it shouldn't exist. One copyright owner gets to keep their code, while all others don't.
The one with their copyright name in the GPL license gets the code? Shouldn't be that way. No one should or everyone should have to give up their code.
Also, if a company loses their code to the GPL, do they still have rights to their own lost code, to put it under MPL, CDDL, Apache or EPL?
Also, what if a company has rights to distribute proprietary code by another company with their code. And one company distributes another company's with GPL? Does that other company lose its code too?
Aside from this major problem, the only way GPL can be useful is for non profits and for individuals who intended to give their code away anyway. They're still giving away their code to too much of a restriction by choosing GPL.
Before, I argued that, GPL needs a minor version upgrade to allow dynamic linking in, so it can use any library, and not force its viralness downwards. After realizing this, it's better to not want the GPL to get that improvement and to leave it to rot.
I'm questioning even using a run interface layer that GPL can be behind, but GPL is so viral they might try to take that code too. Maybe fill userland below the interface emulation layer away from GPL with all kinds of nonviral licenses, so if FSF wants to challenge everyone for using an interface or syscall layer, they would have to sue everyone: Eclipse Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, Apache Foundation, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and lose.
To compare why for OSL to consider works distributed on an Intranet as belonging to OSL is ok, is because linked code isn't considered a derivative work. They don't lose that.
Further case why MPL, CDDL, OSL, Apache, MsPL and EPL are business friendly. They don't force you to lose your dynamically linked code.
Apache 2.0's main argument is, if you interfere with code under it, you lose rights to use Apache code, and stop using it for breaking our terms. It's not eager to steal others code, if copyright holders should happen to make a mistake.
I thought I had it figured out, but this thread made me see even more of what's inherently wrong with GPL, aside from its creator arguing the case for PDF file.
At least that is how it was for centuries until some communist (Stallman) invented some randome copy"left" (leftism=socialism, in case you forgot) and decided that owners have limited rights, but random peoplke who own nothing can dictate the actions of other random people or limit them.
GPL has to go! The PDF file Stallimn.pdf can follow. There's a need to tolerate LGPL, however.