GPL doesn't hinder sharing. GPL hinders proprietary software. Now, if you don't believe in the morals behind the free software movement, then you might decide that hindering proprietary software is hindering "sharing with companies". It's a very odd kind of sharing to give something to a company and they make it proprietary so they don't give anything back and end up also mistreating their users.
A bit late maybe, but GPL does not only hinder proprietary software, it also prevents the use of a more permissive license, such as MIT. Personally I would never GPL any of my code because of this. I prefer a more permissive license (such as MIT or similar) but that also means I cannot put GPL code inside my code. So whenever I see GPL:ed code, whether for private (open-source) purposes or business (proprietary, closed-source), I steer clear. So if I'm not able to use the code for any purpose, does that not mean that sharing is hindered?
Btw, I never said I don't believe in the morals of the free software movement, I just said I don't believe GPL is the way forward. GPL is idealistic but not very pragmatic. Open-source is the future and (ironically) a lot of big (traditionally closed-source) companies are paving the way.
When discussing highly biased points. It is always wiser to be able to acknowledge that even your bias, is the cause of some sorrow. However, despite that, it is still worthwhile.
I appreciate your passion for the free software movement. But remember that in any conversation you do yourself and your position a disservice by brushing off practical criticisms for theoretical ideals.
