1. Is there any doubt he is well within the rights of the GPLv2?
No. But under v3, he must publish his changes.
2. Is there any question that he is distributing the use of the CMS backended by MySQL?
Using a program is FAR different than distributing the program. Under this kind of sopistry, ALL multi-user programs are guilty of the 'loophole'.
3. Is there any question, that he changed the code?
Since that is posited, no doubt.
4. Are you satisfied, that were you Darl's competitor, that he is using nearly identical hardware and bandwidth, that trounces your setup you pride yourself in being as "Good as it gets" in regards to tweaks and making the preoper optimizations for you platform?
What competitors believe is irrelevant. You might believe that ANYTHING is 'as good as it gets'; so what? What gives you, as a competitor, the right to the efforts of your competition? Especially as the software HAS NOT been distributed in any way.
5. Yet Darl is using the same software and nearly the same hardware, yet his site is better than 20 times faster then yours and due to that can handle many more customers on that setup, stealing business away from you. Do this seem fair?
Darl is NOT using the same software - and as Darls competition, you have the right to optimize the software as well, so there is NOTHING 'unfair'.
6. Do you agree, that "technically" he *IS* distributing a binary usage, being used by hundreds (if not thousands) of people?
No. Not at all. Not in ANY WAY. This is sophistry, pure and simple. No binaries have been distributed; they are not running on the client's machine.
7. If you do not think he is providing / selling / distributing / making-available-for-pay the Binaries of this CMS and MySQL, then what is he selling or providing?
Use of his server. The binaries have never moved, they do NOT run on the client machines, not at ALL. THERE HAS BEEN NO DISTRIBUTION - except if you want to redefine 'distribution'. That IS the MO of your argument, no? In fact, you CAN'T redefine distribution like this - that's why the FSF feels this so-called 'loophole' has to be closed.
What if both MySQL and the CMS were actually YOUR programs, that YOU copyrighted and released under the GNU GPLv2? What effect would that have on your stance? Would this affect your willingness to continue developing these programs, pro-bono?
No effect. Under GPL2 I have no right to another's efforts unless the software is distributed. GPL3 effectively eliminates the availability of source code as a desireable feature for business, though.
and more than likely will start using GPLv3, when the misunderstandings are worked out and everyone understands what "Web Services" really means.
Fantasy. I've read the proposed license a dozen times, and I'm truly afraid I DO know what 'web services' means to the FSF.