CopyLeft does NOT mean NO Royalties. If a developer uses the GPLv2, GPLv3, or AGPL, they can still make you pay for it before handing you the source code. It does NOT have to be free to access, just that the source code is handed out.
This is drifting off topic, but I feel this is rather important to point out : that's not what "royalty" means. A royalty is a payment for continuous use of something. It is not payment for initial access or initial modification of the thing. That's why they tend to be percentages of the profit of a larger commercial work. GPL allows charges for modification and distribution but it definitely doesn't allow charging for the actual use of it.
Also to clarify since I'm replying anyway, I meant that implication in context. It is completely pointless to require payment to digitally access a GPL work, since the person then can just release the work for free themselves. The reasons one would want to require payment for access are either because a physical copy always costs money somehow to create or as a symbolic way to charge for the service to the community at large, neither of which apply here.