Original sentence: GPL supporters often point out that since BSD licensed code allows distribution of closed source modified versions, that the work of the contributor has been "stolen", and as such is not fair and therefore no code should be licensed under BSD-style licenses - however, the original free, BSD licensed code is still available for all to use and improve, with the copyrights still remaining to the author.However, it is counter-argued that the non-copyleft nature of the BSD license  encourages inclusion of well-developed standard code into closed source projects, and it is further argued that licenses such as the GPL discourages this, forcing people who wish to develop closed source projects to reinvent the wheel to maintain their ability to keep the project closed source, doing it in possibly a less-efficient way than the open source version does it (as it has been open to more scrutiny and patching)
Edited sentence: GPL supporters often point out that since BSD licensed code allows distribution of closed source modified versions, that the work of the contributor has been somehow "stolen", and as such is not fair and therefore no code should be licensed under BSD-style licenses -- however, it still remains that the original free, BSD licensed code is still available for all to use and improve, with the copyrights still remaining to the author and that nothing has been lost.However, it is argued that the non-copyleft nature of the BSD license  encourages inclusion of well-developed standard code into closed source projects, and it is further argued that licenses such as the GPL discourages this, forcing people who wish to develop closed source projects to reinvent the wheel to maintain their ability to keep the project closed source, doing it in possibly a less-efficient way than the open source version does it (as it has been open to more scrutiny and patching)