More specifically, the GPL is a contract you agree to when you use the product. While strictly speaking it should be a more explicit contract, strictly speaking there's a lot of those kinds of issues with our society.
The GPL is saying "Here's my work, I'll trade it with you on these terms". The aggression would be in breaking those terms.
>More specifically, the GPL is a contract you agree to when you use the product. While strictly speaking it should be a more explicit contract, strictly speaking there's a lot of those kinds of issues with our society.
Wrong. You do not agree to anything by using GPL software. You must abide by the GPL terms upon redistribution to maintain permission granted by the license.
It is not a contract. The differences between license law and contract law are significant. Groklaw covers the issue thoroughly.[1]
>The GPL is saying "Here's my work, I'll trade it with you on these terms". The aggression would be in breaking those terms.
The GPL does not say that. It says "Here is my work. You may redistribute it under these same terms." It has no requirement you give your changes back to the original author. No trading[2] occurs.
You can consider the GPL a contract, but consider the hypothetical situation: I download a GPLed software, implicitly accepting the license/contract. Then I violate it by giving you a copy of the software without making you accept the GPL.
If the GPL is just a contract, then you can now distribute the software as you wish, since you're not bound by such contract. Copyright, on the other hand, doesn't work like that: everyone is bound by default, and you need a license like the GPL to "break free" from copyright's restrictions.
The GPL is saying "Here's my work, I'll trade it with you on these terms". The aggression would be in breaking those terms.