These are tricky waters, so I'm not sure I can do the GNU viewpoint justice. You should read their FAQ and other essays for details. They talk about the four freedoms:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
"do I have the right to see all the source code in the world?" No, you can't force someone to show you their software. Their list of freedoms is only triggered when you legally receive a copy of the software, or hardware which includes the software.
"What about source code that contains private data?" - Since no one is forced to give you the source code, then this doesn't apply. If they gave you the private data voluntarily, then it's not really that private, is it? If the "private data" is a required decryption key, then you must be provided that information. If the private data is a data file which is not part of the program, then it's not covered.
"What if you gave that code to your family" - Nope. It's triggered when you receive the software, not when someone else receives it.
"demanding from Microsoft to reveal their trade secrets is like fighting slavery is, IMHO, a bit offensive to people that suffered and fought the actual slavery" - Oh, I agree. I think I'm being overly blunt in describing GNU's view that way. I do it to get across the view that they view it as a moral obligation, which is different than the Open Source view that it's an economic advantage.
That's why "makes their product worse" doesn't cut it for GNU. They don't care if software is crappy or not, they only care that it's free ... and 'non-crappy' is only important when it advances the cause of freedom.
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
- The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
"do I have the right to see all the source code in the world?" No, you can't force someone to show you their software. Their list of freedoms is only triggered when you legally receive a copy of the software, or hardware which includes the software.
"What about source code that contains private data?" - Since no one is forced to give you the source code, then this doesn't apply. If they gave you the private data voluntarily, then it's not really that private, is it? If the "private data" is a required decryption key, then you must be provided that information. If the private data is a data file which is not part of the program, then it's not covered.
"What if you gave that code to your family" - Nope. It's triggered when you receive the software, not when someone else receives it.
"demanding from Microsoft to reveal their trade secrets is like fighting slavery is, IMHO, a bit offensive to people that suffered and fought the actual slavery" - Oh, I agree. I think I'm being overly blunt in describing GNU's view that way. I do it to get across the view that they view it as a moral obligation, which is different than the Open Source view that it's an economic advantage.
That's why "makes their product worse" doesn't cut it for GNU. They don't care if software is crappy or not, they only care that it's free ... and 'non-crappy' is only important when it advances the cause of freedom.