You're still mistaken — the freedoms the GPL ensures are for the software itself, not the developers or the users. In the case of VLC the developers have lost the freedom to publish it and end-users can't get it anymore, but those lines of code are sure free from the shackles of the App Store!
Facebook users do not see themselves as running software beyond their browser — it's just a website they use to communicate. It would be just as ridiculous to want the source to a SMTP/IMAP or XMPP server just because you have an account on it. The user-facing software is just CRUD plumbing — the account is what has value, and future control over that identity on that ___domain is usually more valuable than even the past data.
The GPL's conditions cleverly fit within the enforcement mechanisms of copyright law, it's a license to redistribute not a contract for use. The AGPL is totally different, it attempts to restrict your ability to run the software on a network-connected computer, much like the standard EULA text forbids you from using it in a nuclear facility. Unlike the GPL, you have to agree to its terms to execute it. One of these things is not like the other.
The id software games are a poor example, those ecosystems of mods were established when the games were commercially released, with tens of thousands of users making their own assets for the game engine they purchased. The GPL releases all came years into their decline, and several of the games had FOSS implementations of their engines before the original source was released.
Maybe we simply disagree. I don't think software, personified, has the capability to appreciate freedom. And, I think both the FSF and Stallman think the same[1][2].
Apple lost (or, more accurately, never had) the freedom to distribute VLC under the terms and conditions of the App Store. And the end users cannot get VLC from the App Store; though, it's readily available from other sources.
Whether or not Facebook users see themselves as running software isn't relevant to the argument. A person who licenses their software under the AGPL does view it that way. Therefore, if you choose to host that software, you're required to redistribute the source code. The AGPL doesn't restrict your ability to use the software on a network-connected computer. It does, however, require you to distribute the source code to any other users who use the software. If you don't want to distribute the code, then don't let other people use the software over the network!
I don't think it would be ridiculous to want the source to a server-- whether or not I had an account on it. But, I'm a curious guy.
I also agree that there is a lot of value in the account and identity. But, that's a different issue than the software and its license.
The id software games all had previously existing ecosystems. However, I was specifically referring to the ecosystems around the engines. Those improvements, derivatives, and the insight into a professional game engine were only possible after those releases. And I think that Quake's position as the often first-ported game to new game systems is a good testament.
Quite frankly, your argument confuses me because you claim the software itself is of limited value while simultaneously taking umbrage at being required to redistribute it.
[2] "Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. ... To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk." http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
Facebook users do not see themselves as running software beyond their browser — it's just a website they use to communicate. It would be just as ridiculous to want the source to a SMTP/IMAP or XMPP server just because you have an account on it. The user-facing software is just CRUD plumbing — the account is what has value, and future control over that identity on that ___domain is usually more valuable than even the past data.
The GPL's conditions cleverly fit within the enforcement mechanisms of copyright law, it's a license to redistribute not a contract for use. The AGPL is totally different, it attempts to restrict your ability to run the software on a network-connected computer, much like the standard EULA text forbids you from using it in a nuclear facility. Unlike the GPL, you have to agree to its terms to execute it. One of these things is not like the other.
The id software games are a poor example, those ecosystems of mods were established when the games were commercially released, with tens of thousands of users making their own assets for the game engine they purchased. The GPL releases all came years into their decline, and several of the games had FOSS implementations of their engines before the original source was released.