[robespierre]

I'm sure that they would not have made it their business model without what they regard as competent legal advice. It may be contrary to the intentions of the GPL, but they can argue that they are not "restricting" the rights under the GPL, but only "responding" by taking co-ordinate actions in other contracts. They can argue that to interpret the GPL to restrict those other contracts is in restraint of trade. In most jurisdictions, the language of a contract is interpreted most strictly against the party who wrote it: for the GPL that would be the FSF and co. So being the FSF, you don't have the luxury of arguing what you really meant to say, you are bound by what you did say. And the FSF chose to emphasize "freedom" instead of economic decentralization in its written text and apologia. That's what I meant by "fundamental ideas behind copyleft are flawed."