@Dan Cole -

I'm guessing you're referring to the Free Software Foundation (FSF)?

Contacting FSF won't settle things any more definitively, because they (naturally) take a very liberal (i.e. expansive) view of the GNU GPL as possible. Their take on the license is just like anyone else's: just their opinion. Even on their FAQ, they take some positions that I seriously doubt will stand up against a court challenge. Their position can even be considered to be self-contradictory. Consider this example:

A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?

The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.

It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. Developers who wish to address this might want to use the GNU Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use.

So which is it? Does the company not have to release the source, or can someone compel the company to release the source?

Until it gets tested in court, nothing will be settled definitively. FSF's opinion certainly doesn't carry any more weight than anyone else's (legally speaking).