I'm still admittedly baffled by people who think GPL is worse than proprietary licensing. I can truly understand, even if I don't agree with, that GPL and proprietary are the same since they have requirements on the license and the license is conditional on certain actions.

But, to claim GPL is worse than proprietary. I think it's completely illogical. What am I missing?

(Of course, I probably shouldn't even think that deeply about this. The guy I chatted with on IRC today who told me that also indicated that his company could sue copyright holders for including what he believed (incorrectly, IMO) was GPL-incompatible code from a third party. Not clear how his company has a cause of action. That seems illogical too -- or at least uninformed about copyright law.)