The GPL is in no way a circumvention of 'draconian copyright law'. To spell it out: the GPL enumerates the rights and obligations of the recipients of a piece of software and critically relies on copyright in order to be able to do so. Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. So this is the polar opposite of your assertion, copyright is indeed used to prevent people from copying work without authorization. But the GPL and it's ilk are designed to allow people to share their work as long as the recipients respect the terms of the license. It's the critical bits that you left out that make all the difference, and without those critical bits the GPL would be useless and all of those critical bits have teeth only because of the existing framework of copyright law, which allows the rights holder to set the terms under which they license their work.

After all, if someone want to share a work without preventing people to do with it as they please then they are utterly free to do so by placing their work in the public domain or by sharing it using a permissive license.

> You continue to argue in bad faith.

You continue to argue in bad faith.

> Copyright law is often used to prevent people from copying work. The GPL and its ilk are legal mechanisms designed to allow people to share their work.

Yes, by relying on copyright law, which enables the very existence of those legal mechanisms. Without copyright law, said legal mechanisms are worth less than the paper on which they're printed.

GPL specifically relies on copyright law as a mechanism to prevent the sharing of work, by enforcing it's virality clause.

Without copyright law there would be no way to require GPLed code to continue to be shared with it's users.

It is ok to admit that you didn't understand how the GPL uses copyright law.