Because freedom also means freedom to use my code and keep it to yourself if you want to. There isn't any corruption in that. Tons of software here are using bsd/mit licensed code and not releasing their change, that has nothing to do with corruption (or you don't understand what corruption is, go read a definition).
Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is under gpl too. You lose your freedom to chose a license. You lose your freedom to keep changes to yourself if you release the resulting binary (why ? because you want to). You lose your freedom to use other piece of code that are not gpl compatible.
I have nothing against the gpl and I use tons of software using it, but it is a fact that it cuts down some of your freedoms compared to other licenses.
The GPL does _NOT_ prevent redistribution, please don't spread more incorrect information. It prevents _redistribution without redistribution of source_. You're still free to get GPL code, change it yourself, and never release it again.
Licenses like the AGPL were created in part because of this problem; some folks think that, morally speaking, code running on a server behaves like distributed code, and should be available. But for example: you're absolutely allowed to take GPL code, change it yourself, keep the source private, and run a web 2.0 business on top of that source code.
Where in my message did I say it prevented redistribution ? Can you quote the sentence that made you understand that ? (this is a serious question)
It's not what I meant, and I don't thing it's what I've written either. If anything, it actually forces redistribution in case some might not want to (when you release a binary but want the sources to remain yours).
"Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is under gpl too. You lose your freedom to chose a license. You lose your freedom to keep changes to yourself if you release the resulting binary (why ? because you want to). You lose your freedom to use other piece of code that are not gpl compatible."
You never had any of those freedoms because the code is not yours. Your point is correct (yes, the GPL does prevent you from stealing other people's work!), but your wording is FUD.
You can modify GPL code and keep it to yourself. What you can't do is modify it and distribute the resultant binary without also releasing the modified source.
Using the GPL means you're free to use my code ... As long as the result is under gpl too. You lose your freedom to chose a license. You lose your freedom to keep changes to yourself if you release the resulting binary (why ? because you want to). You lose your freedom to use other piece of code that are not gpl compatible.
I have nothing against the gpl and I use tons of software using it, but it is a fact that it cuts down some of your freedoms compared to other licenses.