I have thought for a while that the FSF made a miscalculation with the GPL. The focus of the GPL is very much on the source code itself, as though having it was

I have thought for a while that the FSF made a miscalculation with the GPL. The focus of the GPL is very much on the source code itself, as though having it was everything. I think that was a reasonable assumption to make at the time, but I don't think it reflects the current reality. In reality, the code itself is somewhat of a liability -- a source of bugs and a time sink when you try to make modifications. What you really want is the end product and the flexibility to modify and improve it. To have the end product you don't need the source at all, and to modify and improve it the source is (nearly) necessary but not sufficient. That has a few implications. One is that companies don't want to be burdened with source code. They would prefer to share the burden with other users, as long as they aren't giving away any competitive advantage they have. Win-win: they keep the ability to improve and modify it as they need, but unload much of the maintenance cost. The GPL avoids a problem where people take an open source project and try to drive it away with a closed-source product that is a little better. But that doesn't really happen as far as I can see -- usually, releasing a closed-source product based on an open source project is good for both.