It's been said before but obviously bears repeating: whatever one thinks of the GPL, no version of the GPL forces anyone to give up anything. The GPL is conditional copyright license setting the terms under which those who apply it are willing to license their IP. If you'd like to copy software written by others without adhering to the conditions set by the copyright owner, tough. It's someone else's property.

"Morally objectionable" makes you sound an awful lot like Stallman. In fact, replace "free riders" with "software hoarders" as the mantra and you've got the GNU Manifesto. How is an option offered voluntarily to consumers in the free market morally objectionable?

I have to agree with John here. Hyperbole much, Jim?

You support rights of copyright holders to use DRM and lock their content down in whatever way they please, so how is offering something they could use to open it up so bad? Granted, there are many problems with GPLv3, but "morally objectionable"? People make a choice to put their work under these licenses, so morality doesn't really come into it.