What in the world do you think this has to do with the FSF? How is releasing proprietary code at all similar to open sourcing it?
I'm really failing to understand how you made this association or why you think their intent was driven by desire to expose all code. From the torrent description it appears they are trying to out something that Symantec did wrong, not simply release the code.
They opened the source to the world, did they not?
(yes, yes, I know the difference, but in the right light this is funny, no? Releasing the source code has gone beyond mere piracy to active liberation!)
Not only this code is not free, it's toxic. If anyone does or wants to work on free or open source software, I suggest not even looking into this codebase.
i realize that copyleft proponents and permissive license proponents tend to have different views, but painting everyone that disagrees with you as "zealots" and taking cheap pot shots like the ones you see increasingly on hn is pretty intellectually dishonest.
everyone knows that open source has successfully overshadowed free software. no need to continue to marginalize them more than has already been done, you win. they'll try forever to be taken seriously, and everyone will try very hard to miss the point.
also, while a lot of people on hn seem to think that permissive licensing is the only way to do it, most copyleft proponents do think there is a place for permissive licensing. so pretending it's the people calling for more than one solution "zealots" is especially silly.
tl;dr but as long as you outnumber them, you can tell everyone they're the zealots, and as long as you outnumber them you can win the argument (the accusation) by popular support. 100 million open source advocates can't be wrong, (and even if they were, who cares?)
"Ve vill free all ze codes! Open zource everyzing!"
In all seriousness, though, this is not helping the community or fellow anons.