GPL is not about the end user. GPL is about the software.
The end user doesn't care about modifying the source code. And if the end user did care, the end user would also care about being able to chose a permissive license for their modifications. Because then the end user would be the same as the "publisher" you're talking about. This means there is no dichotomy between the "end user" vs the "publisher".
The GPL is about the freedom of the software, not the rights of the user. It effectively proclaims software as a common good that is inherently unownable. It does this for a philosophical ideal of a greater good (the popular comparisons with communism are obviously hyperbolic but not entirely unreasonable).
Making this about the "end user" vs the "publisher" is incredibly intellectually dishonest. MIT and friends grant the user of the code more rights by definition because the user can re-publish their modifications under a different license (without impacting the original code so nobody "loses" anything).
The irony is that this actually makes the GPL a useful tool for commercial publishers because it prohibits competitors from creating private extensions to the GPL code without making them public -- while the original copyright holders can still keep their non-GPL copy of the code around and make private extensions to that without having to obey the GPL (as long as they don't include any modifications others have made to the GPL code directly).
Heck, the common standard practice of corporate open source projects is to have all external contributors sign a CLA that effectively grants the company direct rights to the modifications outside of the project's license, allowing them to redistribute the modifications under any license they see fit.
The GPL is a restrictive license. It makes more restrictions on how the licensee can use the licensed work. This serves a moral ideal, yes, but don't kid yourself that this isn't restrictive.
It's like saying democracy is freer than anarchy. You might be correct in a philosophical sense (because in a democracy there is a system in place protecting the liberties you are afforded) but saying that democracy affords less restrictions would be absurd.
The end user doesn't care about modifying the source code. And if the end user did care, the end user would also care about being able to chose a permissive license for their modifications. Because then the end user would be the same as the "publisher" you're talking about. This means there is no dichotomy between the "end user" vs the "publisher".
The GPL is about the freedom of the software, not the rights of the user. It effectively proclaims software as a common good that is inherently unownable. It does this for a philosophical ideal of a greater good (the popular comparisons with communism are obviously hyperbolic but not entirely unreasonable).
Making this about the "end user" vs the "publisher" is incredibly intellectually dishonest. MIT and friends grant the user of the code more rights by definition because the user can re-publish their modifications under a different license (without impacting the original code so nobody "loses" anything).
The irony is that this actually makes the GPL a useful tool for commercial publishers because it prohibits competitors from creating private extensions to the GPL code without making them public -- while the original copyright holders can still keep their non-GPL copy of the code around and make private extensions to that without having to obey the GPL (as long as they don't include any modifications others have made to the GPL code directly).
Heck, the common standard practice of corporate open source projects is to have all external contributors sign a CLA that effectively grants the company direct rights to the modifications outside of the project's license, allowing them to redistribute the modifications under any license they see fit.
The GPL is a restrictive license. It makes more restrictions on how the licensee can use the licensed work. This serves a moral ideal, yes, but don't kid yourself that this isn't restrictive.
It's like saying democracy is freer than anarchy. You might be correct in a philosophical sense (because in a democracy there is a system in place protecting the liberties you are afforded) but saying that democracy affords less restrictions would be absurd.