Originally Posted by qtiger
Were it not for a truly open source available for a base (BSD), Mac users would have been stuck with more evolutions of the previous Mac OS, which IMHO was trash. Thus, users benefit. Apple really doesn't benefit a great deal, because their user base would have purchased Mac OS X even if it was built off some Commodore 64 code. They release a better product for no added cost.
Similarly, Microsoft has taken several toolsets and most of BSD's TCP/IP stack handling for the Windows 2000 kernel. Again, users benefit. Same as the above with Microsoft's benefit. It isn't like they are hurting for users.
Offhand, I can't think of a large company that has used any GPL code in their products... maybe because it would financially ruin them? Thus, the developers of GPL code won't be used by the megacorps they despise, and who benefits from the GPL code?
that still doesn't explain why you think the GPL a bad thing. yes, many software companies do not choose to release code under the GPL, and it makes sense - they can't afford to release their base products freely or they would have no revenue. HOWEVER, there are many companies that HAVE released code under the GPL and other open source licenses. sun microsystems, novell, cisco, IBM, SGI and others have all released code under the GPL, contributed code to linux, and contributed numerous other open source code - these are the only companies i know of off hand. novell just bought suse, a company who's primary product is a linux distribution (which by nature is free and covered by the GPL), for tens of millions of dollars. now why would anyone want to spend that kind of money on a company whose primary product is covered by this murderous GPL and generates no revenue?
furthermore, there is this thing called the OSDL (Open Source Development Labs), which is basically an organization that is dedicated to the advancement of linux (linux specifically, and thus linux under the GPL) in enterprise. it is funded by a long list of companies. its members include the ones listed above, and ALSO linus torvalds, dell, ericsson, fujitsu, HP, intel, hitachi, NEC, nokia, toshiba and more. most regular software companies like microsoft that rely strictly on a limited software base as their source of revenue will likely not use GPL licensed code with their products. and that's all well and good - like i said, the GPL isn't for everyone. but i'm sorry, the idea that big companies don't use the GPL is just wrong. the idea that the GPL is somehow a bad thing is complete bullshit.