I still see the FSF as a bit... idk... zealous? delusional? deliberately blind?
The basic problem is that the GPL cannot live up to it's goal in all cases unless it is backed by both a) software patents and b) a software patent license under the terms of the GPL. Absent that all you have is a license that allows you to do some things otherwise prohibited by copyright law. You have no restrictions beyond copyright law.
The problem here is that copyright law doesn't ban all copying and distribution. Notable cases in the US which allowed verbatim copying of part of source or object code in commercial products as fair use include Oracle v. Google and Lexmark v. SCC. In both cases the court basically said that 17 USC 102(b) precludes using copyrights to ban control secondary markets of practical tools.
So I read this as that in US law you do not need the copyright owner's permission to distribute software that links to a copyrighted library. If I want to link to GNU Readline with my proprietary app, 17 USC 102(b) protects me regarding US law, provided I dont distribute Readline myself. But hey, virtually every Linux distro ships with Readline so, what does it matter?
I don't know how fruits-of-labor jurisdictions address this issue but there is likely to be some line that prevents this as well. Otherwise Microsoft could say "Nobody can distribute MinGW for Windows 8 because no longer give permission to link against our system libraries for that version." No court in the world will give Microsoft that level of power, ergo I doubt the FSF has anything close to that either.
The GPL was designed to protect users, not developers. Under it, developers can't hide the source code from their users, can't prevent their users from modifying the programs they use and from helping other users with the code they have. If you statically link to a GPL'ed library, your code is GPL'ed, end of story. What Lexmark did was to use code as an excuse to prevent the formation of a free market. What Lexmark did is very close to what Microsoft is trying to do preventing the formation of a free market for operating systems for ARM devices.
you know, I use the GPL v2 for most of my code for reasons of history of projects, and the 2-clause BSD license where I can. I refuse to use the GPL v3.
As for what Microsoft did, I think the key case would be Chamberlain v. Skylink. There is going to be no DMCA issue with breaking secure boot because you can't show that this is access control in the way the DMCA intends it. If you can jailbreak your ARM tablet that will be seen as fair use even if it involves literal copying (see the US Copyright Offices opinion on fair use regarding jailbreaking iPhones by copying/modifying iOS). If not, at least there has been enough press for you to consider yourself fairly warned in advance. IOW, it's a technical measure, not one backed by force of law.
I don't mind the GPL v2. It's a relatively simple license. There is some ambiguity (if I statically link your GPL v2 module in my program and provide the source just for your module is that allowed?) but for the most part that's pretty minor.
The GPL v3 is a nightmare and I try hard to avoid touching it. I don't care how many times I slowly read the license, it never makes sense to me.
For example..... Can you include a 2-clause BSD-licensed module in a GPLv3-licensed program? If the BSD license is interpreted not to allow sublicensing or passing on only a subset of rights to the code (this is the official view of the Software Freedom Law Center btw), does that render the licenses incompatible as per the additional terms (particularly the additional permissions) requirements in section 7 of the GPL v3?
With the GPL v2 everyone had a general idea of what it meant and lawyers only really argued around the edges. With the GPL v3, I don't think anyone understands it. And the driver of this problem is the FSF trying to push copyright enforcement where, quite frankly, it doesn't belong.
