In the case of Snort, that would be protection from 5-10 VC-funded commercial companies releasing products that compete with Sourcefire's product, the core of which (in fact, the entire v1.0 of which) is simply Snort. Does that sound fair to you? That someone would collect $5MM to build a 30 person engineering team that gets to start picking off customers in 3 months by repackaging your code? It doesn't sound fair to me at all.
As I said below, I'm surprised by the emotional arguments engendered in your word choices -- "fairness", "benevolence", etc.
This is simply business, not ideology. In terms of ideology, I think there's a simply check for whether Sourcefire meets the criteria of "I love the GPL. Except when it applies to me": Sourcefire could not ever include anyone else's GPL code in their own product without breaking their business model.
And? So what? Sourcefire isn't scavenging Github for code to stick on their boxes; they're writing code, and then (for the most part) publishing it to the world.
From my vantage point, it's the people who produce interesting and valuable code whose interests should come first. Companies who reallllly want to use that code in their for-profit endeavors can buy a license or build their own replacement or open their code; I don't care.
I'm not sure what your point is, or how it counters the author's original point, which is that what's good for the goose is very much not good for the gander.
