GNU/GPL confers no different rights than the same rights one has when purchasing an automobile or any other product. If some software vendors choose to give their products away at no cost to certain users so be it. It's their choice, and unlike Marxism no one is forcing them to give their intellectual property away. It's voluntary. The difference between MS's EULA and GNU/GPL is that with GNU/GPL the user is the owner whereas MS retains all ownership rights to their software. Apparently, private property is too radical a concept for you to accept.
Otoh MS's EULA is a throwback to Medieval serfdom where people were not allowed to own what they paid for and worked on. Any imbicile can see this.
If you object to people not being "allowed to own what they paid for and worked on" then you are arguing for the wrong side.
"no one is forcing them to give their intellectual property away"
So, which is it? Marxism or volunteerism? I suppose you also loved Clinton's labeling of taxation as "contributions"?
You also got the commons thing wrong. People retained private property and were not required to give it away, even though a village had a commons.
"The difference between MS's EULA and GNU/GPL is that with GNU/GPL the user is the owner whereas MS retains all ownership rights to their software. Apparently, private property is too radical a concept for you to accept.
Newbie to the game, I see. No company has ever sold their software to a user. If a user owns it, then they can do as they please, unless you don't understand ownership principles. To place restrictions on software means that the person does not "own" it, they pay for its use. So, what the Hell is the difference between licensing software and owning it with hordes of restrictions? Nothing, because the result is the same. Does "is" mean "is' in your vocabulary?