Any software a regime did not like, say a BitTorrent spreading forbidden concepts like democracy, or an Anonymizer keeping the regime's chosen victims hidden from it, would have to be shared with the regime.
The source code, which identified how it was made and (since programmers do have their own signatures) perhaps who made it, would be in the regime's hands. They could modify it,turn it against the friends of freedom, and legally grab any modifications as well.
What could Brazil's military regime of 1964-85 have done with an open source 'sharing' requirement, and how would open source advocates feel about that?
When the GPL becomes an enemy of freedom is it null and void? I'm just asking.
Give us your answer in TalkBack.