Perhaps I'm just a GPL fanboy, but I don't see how it's a failing of the FAQ to provide a very clear, and understandable, path to not violating the license. And, I don't see how documenting a strict and good faith approach to following the license is in any way in conflict with the original article.
If you read the FAQ (and the license), and follow the terms clearly laid out therein, you can't possibly be in violation of the license and you can't possibly put yourself in a situation where you accidentally force your code to become Free Software (though that's a nearly impossible outcome, even if you don't understand the GPL on any level, which is the point of the original article).
The FAQ even truthfully covers the situations wherein a company might want to use the GPL for a Free Software version of their code while also retaining copyright and offering other licenses (I've had to refer to this particular FAQ many times in flame wars about my own products over the years, since I always hold the copyright on the products I'm dual-licensing, and I use the GPL for the Open Source releases), and while the ethical position of the FSF often creeps into legal discussion, the facts are still quite clear.
I'm not sure I understand why the "real question" would be "how can I use this code without distributing it under the same terms I received it under?" Aren't we assuming good faith on the part of the "victim" of the GPL?
Frankly, all the flame wars about the GPL and the FSF always seem motivated by something other than lack of clarity about the license. They seem based on disagreements with the motives of the FSF, and I find it disingenuous to make it about the license (which is clear to most people who actually read it, and among the best documented software licenses in the world for those who can't grasp its nuances merely from the license itself). If you don't like the Free Software concept, and think BSD or public domain or something else is better for you, or your business, or your customers, or whoever, then say so. Don't argue that the GPL is incomprehensible or the FSF is trying to hide facts about the GPL (the documentation for the GPL v3 is very enlightening and transparent about loopholes in v2 they've tried to close and their reasoning for the changes and additions to the license), as it really isn't.
If you read the FAQ (and the license), and follow the terms clearly laid out therein, you can't possibly be in violation of the license and you can't possibly put yourself in a situation where you accidentally force your code to become Free Software (though that's a nearly impossible outcome, even if you don't understand the GPL on any level, which is the point of the original article).
The FAQ even truthfully covers the situations wherein a company might want to use the GPL for a Free Software version of their code while also retaining copyright and offering other licenses (I've had to refer to this particular FAQ many times in flame wars about my own products over the years, since I always hold the copyright on the products I'm dual-licensing, and I use the GPL for the Open Source releases), and while the ethical position of the FSF often creeps into legal discussion, the facts are still quite clear.
I'm not sure I understand why the "real question" would be "how can I use this code without distributing it under the same terms I received it under?" Aren't we assuming good faith on the part of the "victim" of the GPL?
Frankly, all the flame wars about the GPL and the FSF always seem motivated by something other than lack of clarity about the license. They seem based on disagreements with the motives of the FSF, and I find it disingenuous to make it about the license (which is clear to most people who actually read it, and among the best documented software licenses in the world for those who can't grasp its nuances merely from the license itself). If you don't like the Free Software concept, and think BSD or public domain or something else is better for you, or your business, or your customers, or whoever, then say so. Don't argue that the GPL is incomprehensible or the FSF is trying to hide facts about the GPL (the documentation for the GPL v3 is very enlightening and transparent about loopholes in v2 they've tried to close and their reasoning for the changes and additions to the license), as it really isn't.