Subverting GPL

I have a few ideas, how legal are these:
1. submitting code requiring a 1000$ compiler or 1000$ language docs
2. submitting asm code as "source"
3. making deliberate errors in code or inserting bugs.
4. altering source code to make it look like line noise.
Not that i like to do any of this, just checking what is possible to do with my code.

iANAL but I think that:
- 4 violates the GPL.
- 2 violates the GPL unless the original source code is ASM.
- 3 is dumb.

Your small time.
I have some better disruptive ideas:
1. Lock the users into a licensing monoculture
2. Enforce usage of a newspeak that overrides the accepted meaning of common words such as "free"
3. Foster a culture that looks down on shaving and showering

3 violates the GPL unless your binary release contains the same bugs.

Stop trying to be edgy.

1. Docs are never required. The compiler would need to be a general purpose tool which is not part of the
work; creating a sham compiler to circumvent the GPL won't do.
2. Assembly is usually not the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
3. This has nothing to do with the GPL.
4. Line noise is not the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it except if it's Perl code.

There is a simpler way that I've seen used in the wild:
Create a server that contains the GPL'd parts, and a client that is closed source. If a server is too much work, just a separate executable (not a library). Publish server source code (modified or not) if it has to be ran locally, don't if it's done remotely.

AGPL can prevent this kind of abuse partially.

>>7
That's not abuse of anything. GPL software is not being distributed in that scenario and so, the GPL is not invoked. If anything, it is a way to distribute non-GPL software that is designed to work together with GPL software.

>>8
I know it's not against the GPL, but it's a way of using GPL'd code without revealing anything more than you have to about the new code that you write.  The only way to actually prevent that kind of use is to use some license that only permits code licensed under the same license to inter-operate with it (very restrictive), otherwise you risk someone indirectly doing what I mentioned in >>7.
Not that I even care about aggresive forms of copyleft - public-domain/BSD/MIT fan here.

The GPLv4 will state that the covered code must be at a distance of at least 1m from the closest incompatibly-licensed source.

>>10
So you route it through a network. Now they have to make a GPLv5

>>11
No need. Routing through a network should be enough to make some things slow as fuck.

You are allowed to charge for the cost of media (e.g. floppies, optical disks, bandwidth...)

Just lie and say you bought the most expensive hosting ever.