Stallman views sharing of source code as imperative, so the idea that you wouldn't use the GPL is anathema to him. He claims that it protects users, but this leaves out the people who spend the time and effort to develop that software product.
At that point, you're back to traditional copyright and other less restrictive schemes.
Sure, Stallman's preferred option is that you use free software and release yours as such accordingly, but I think he'd still prefer you to write your own and release that as proprietary than take free software and bundle it up in a way that takes away the user's freedoms.
> He claims that it protects users, but this leaves out the people who spend the time and effort to develop that software product.
Some things really aren't all positives for everyone. The free software movement prioritises users first. Sometimes this is a negative for the developer's goals. But clearly by the existence of a large amount of free software, there are enough developer's sympathetic to this goal to make it work, and by eliminating those restrictions, I don't see how that's preferable (or even different) to the all rights reserved world.
At that point, you're back to traditional copyright and other less restrictive schemes.