I think then that you know what Stallman is talking about when he uses the term "freedom" but you are taking the hard way in accusing him of dishonesty when you seem to really mean that he is using the wrong words.
Words matter, and calling for restrictions under the guise of "freedom" is propaganda and dishonest.
Words matter, but you are the one who is using dishonest propaganda.
You seem to think that granting additional freedoms conditional on preserving them to others is a restriction merely because it is not unconditional, or because it is less that you hoped.
But you've had to resort to faulty analogies to make the argument because otherwise it could be dismissed as easily as I have just done: A conditional freedom is not a restriction, it is just a definition of the freedom.
Software is non-tangible and as a licensee you have no ownership rights, and only those rights granted by the licensor (author/owner). This point was not represented at all in your analogy.
It's immaterial. We're talking about whether source code must be provided (or "made available") when providing a binary. That's imposing an extra restriction that could equally be applied to tangible objects, as in the car example.
Nonsense. When providing the car, you are transferring ownership to your uncontested property.
When providing a binary based on someone else's source it is not your uncontested property. And without a license you have absolutely no rights to distribute that binary. The media may be your uncontested property but the binary is not.
The trouble with an analogy is that you have to prove your point with the analogy and then prove that the analogy applies. You get two arguments instead of one.
With software where the GPL applies, they are not the new owner, they are just a licensee.
I'm discussing in particular the Free Software Definition, of which the GPL is a particular license designed to enforce it. The GPL only draws its power because of copyrights on software. In a theoretical world without copyrights on software, and hence no licenses, the Free Software Definition is still a valid position statement. It would just label all software without corresponding source code as "non-free".
You were actually discussing the conditional transference of a car that was your property.
But I hardly think copyright laws will go away and it's not relevant to your misapplication of the analogy.
Stallman made his proposal because copyright was being undermined practically,
Rubbish, copyright was being excercised to his detriment, not undermined
and under serious debate in the public sphere. Don't be so sure they won't go away. It's like saying you can't ever imagine slavery going away, or the Berlin Wall coming down, or the USSR dissolving, or gay marriage, or legalized pot, or legal abortions, or any number of things that at one time seemed impossible... until they were a reality.
Anyways, even if copyright on software is here to stay,
Well, I based my guess on the monied lobies that argue for it and keep extending it. You may be right, and I suspect that when/if you are there will be other great social upheavels.
the theoretical argument remains. My argument applies to the Free Software Definition irregardless of the status of copyright.
Your argument remains, in the dust. You've repeated your argument but now I invite you to see the state without any confusing car analogies:
If I have a copy of someone else's software, I have the capability to distribute copies, but not the freedom to do so.
If I have a copy of someone else's software and a GPL license then I also have a freedom to distribute the software.
The license did not restrict me, but gave me a freedom I did not previously have. Without the GPL I could not distribute binaries OR source. The GPL gives permission to distribute binaries+source. Because it doesn't give you freedom to distribute just binaries you call it a restriction!
I wonder if your argument is really that if RMS were supporting "freedom" that he would have chosen the BSD license or recommended public domain because they offer more "freedom"?
Is that so? If so you could make it without resorting to car analogies.
The answer would be that GPL preserves the freedom for more people. Perhaps RMS doesn't want more quantities of "freedom" hoarded up in a few places, perhaps he wants all people to be free.
But even then, your accusation does not apply; even though you might not be satisfied with the additional freedoms you have on someone else's property.