Philosophically I see it as forced don't-murder is no longer true don't-murder.

Why does it have to be forced? Why can't murder just be legal and if you want to murder that's fine and if you don't, that's fine too...

It was not forced charity from the original author. They were free to choose any license. The original author is the only one in the position to choose to be charitable or not. No one else's opinion on charity matters.

Rather being thoughtful and principled enough to choose a copyleft license is the truest charity of all and the most valuable for all other consumers forever after.

It's forced on everyone else after that, but I see no problem with that because remind me again just what exactly is the terrible burden being forced again?

If I get something from you and the only terms are not money but simply attribute and share-alike, that is not some burden.

That's like saying the only terms are you can have this for free and you can use it for any purpose you want, but just promise not to punch me in the face. "What? Outrageous! It's totally unreasonable to make it a condition enforced by law that I can't punch you in the face and still take your stuff."