Do tell. The GPL isn’t ideology-free(though it’s not clear that any license is; commercial licenses tend to explicitly or implicitly endorse a vision of software as a commodity distributed according to the logic of profit maximization; while BSD/MIT/Apache endorse either(depending on the user) a very definite distaste for any licensing terms that aren’t more or less unavoidable, or a pragmatic bet that ubiquity will be more advantageous than higher rates of reciprocity); but its restrictions on the ideology of the user are pretty tepid.
It explicitly avoids any mandates concerning use(either purpose of project, profit/nonprofit, etc. or user: individual, educational, private sector state entity); and the only restriction it imposes is that you must afford anyone you distribute the derived binaries to the same rights you enjoyed(which is an ideological stance; but one that makes ideological policing harder: GPL compliance prevents you from denying the code to users or uses you don’t like).
The GPL3 and AGPL pay a bit more attention to use; but still not to restrict it; just to ensure that tivoization or cloud services that don’t ‘distribute’ in the conventional sense aren’t end runs around the requirements.
That’s pretty low on the ideology police scale.
