I'm not sure that is the credo. At least, it's not the credo behind the GPL. Every day I use software that is at least partly GPL code, but I can't access the source code. Why? Because I used a webapp. If the software you use is running on a server rather than your local machine then the GPL says you don't get to have 'freedom'.

So "users" isn't a useful distinction when it comes to Free Software, because the GPL doesn't guarantee freedom for users. It only guarantees freedom for the person who owns and controls the hardware.

When the GPL was written, this kind of software wasn't very common. Now that it is, the FSP formalized the AGPL, which they recommend over the GPL for server-side software.

Nearly any software is potentially server side software. So really they should recommend AGPL for everything, and relicence all FSF owned projects as AGPL.

They don't because a lot of people even inside the FOSS community are violently opposed to the AGPL. Quite a few people think that it conflicts with Freedom Zero.

Good point. That's more precise summary of their credo and it's narrower than the "community".

There is no meaningful distinction between user and developer. All developers are users, and in cases like this, with compilers, all users are also developers.