RMS article that talks about GPL3
Some companies, such as Google, use code covered by GPL to offer their services through the Web. Do you plan to extend GPL 3 copyleft to request code publication in this case too, considering this behavior like a product distribution?
Running a program in a public server is not distribution; it is public use. We're looking at an approach where programs used in this way will have to include a command for the user to download the source for the version that is running.
But this will not apply to all GPL-covered programs, only to programs that already contain such a command. Thus, this change would have no effect on existing software, but developers could activate it in the future.
This is only a tentative plan, because we have not finished studying the matter to be sure it will work.
The article only mentions the wording of the GPL3 in passing. But the above comment makes it clear that the exact wording is still up in the air, and that RMS realizes the issue is a delicate one.
RMS's suggested solution is an interesting one, but strikes me as a bad one. The idea that the software is free to be modified is badly hurt if you are forced to keep certain commands implemented to maintain GPL compatability.
Nor will it really solve the problem since in many cases the GPL software is behind a non-GPL web interface. Not to mention the problem that some public services that are not web based don't have a convient way to download files.
Jay