Indeed, some copyright infringement IS fine: casual whistling of a tune, quoting passages of books for reviews, copying the cut and fit of stylish trousers, things like that.
Since copyright is enforced by the state, for the purposes of advancement of art and science, we have to draw a balance. "Copyright" isn't state-policed money to be given to an "artist" and his/her/its heirs for ever. Copyright is supposed to entice people to create more stuff, by allowing a small monopoly.
If and when that monopoly becomes too costly to society, the state gets to revoke it. Like it or hate it, the GPL doesn't really have that kind of cost to society. GPL'ed code is open for people to build on, to create with.
Beyond that, "GPL" is a license, not a copyright. Actions against entities under the GPL are not really "copyright" suits, as I understand it, but rather contract suits.
To sum up: you're hoping that people forget what purpose copyright has, and you're hoping that people don't understand the difference between "copyright" and "license".
No, the GPL2 is a conditional copyright grant agreeing to waive some of the standard "All Rights Reserved" terms provided that you meet its copyleft terms.
It's not a contract, and hasn't been enforced that way -- all GPL2 violations are copyright infringement -- you're distributing someone else's work without their permission.
This is also why the AGPL is unenforceable bullshit (it attempts to restrain your right to run the software, not just distribution), and why the GPL3 is extremely questionable (restraining the system on which you distribute the work).
You know what? You're correct: GPL suits have been copyright suits - but only because the terms of the LICENSE have been violated. Apparently the SFLC (main GPL litigator) hasn't done any of their suits under contract law. Perhaps the overly strict (a.k.a. "draconian") copyright regime we suffer under allows them to more easily win, or at least threaten for more damages.
However, GPL is a license, and it does waive some of the "rights" that usually get claimed, as long as you observe the terms of the license. In that respect, it's identical to EULA's.
But the GPL doesn't do the "it's mine, all mine, my precious" sort of hoarding that the usual licensing does, so I doubt that we'd ever see anyone busting copyright because the GPL is used to create artifical scarities, or jury-rig markets or the other stuff Big Media does with "all right reserved" copyright.
The GPL2 is less restrictive than any EULA I've seen -- it only addresses distribution, and only restricts things that standard "All Rights Reserved" copyright would restrict anyway. It's purely a copyright license, and I respect it for that, even if morons paste it into the "I accept" textarea in their installer-builders.
The AGPL, now that's a EULA. It hits the trifecta of basic wrongheadedness, poor implementation, and total unenforceability. The only thing it's missing is the admonition against using it in a Nuclear facility or exporting it to Libya.
Since copyright is enforced by the state, for the purposes of advancement of art and science, we have to draw a balance. "Copyright" isn't state-policed money to be given to an "artist" and his/her/its heirs for ever. Copyright is supposed to entice people to create more stuff, by allowing a small monopoly.
If and when that monopoly becomes too costly to society, the state gets to revoke it. Like it or hate it, the GPL doesn't really have that kind of cost to society. GPL'ed code is open for people to build on, to create with.
Beyond that, "GPL" is a license, not a copyright. Actions against entities under the GPL are not really "copyright" suits, as I understand it, but rather contract suits.
To sum up: you're hoping that people forget what purpose copyright has, and you're hoping that people don't understand the difference between "copyright" and "license".