Don't these folks read the GPL???

First, Linux is the kernel, not the entire operating
system. This means the 'Linux license' affects
application code running on it in no way. Second, the
GPL does not require that changes are contributed back
to the open source community and never has (and chances
are that 'the open source community' doesn't want them,
anyway). It requires that someone who distributes software derived from GPL'ed
code licenses every derived work containing
GPL-code under terms compatible with the GPL.
To repeat this, this clause affects distribution
only and only regarding the recipient of
the distribution, eg a company providing a 'wall
street application' containing a modified Bourne
Again shell would need to provide the sources
of this shell to its customers on request.
.
Some company using whatever GPLed software to
develop whatever applications intended to be used
in house in any conceivable way would likely
not distribute this software and hence be
completely unaffected.

This is complete FUD. In-house code remains private unless the derivative program is distributed outside the company. In that case, the modifications to the source must be provided to whoever gets the program, but not necessarily to the community at large. However, anyone who thereby gets the code can redistribute it freely. And this only applies to programs derived from GPL code - a company's own programs that simply run on a Linux platform are not affected at all. They can be every bit as proprietary as Windows or Unix programs

So, these companies have absolutely nothing to worry about. Also, even if they violated the GPL by not making source available, their own source still does not magically fall under the GPL - they might be required to stop distributing the offending program and pay damages, but their proprietary code remains proprietary.

Microsoft is under attack from Apple on the high end and Linux on the low end. OS X blows away any MSFT offering, while Linux is ruling the new sub-miniature cheapie notebooks and threatening to take over the smart phone market as well. The middle market (where MSFT dominates) is becoming less important every day. GM and Ford have the same problem. Lexus/Mercedes/BMW rule the luxury class, while Koreans own the entry level. That leaves GM and Ford stuck in the middle, with their customers looking for something better or cheaper next time -- determined to leave GM and Ford either way. The financial press is just beginning to wake up and realize that MSFT is the GM of the technology sector. It's about time!

The GPL does not require disclosure of modified source code if the modified source code is not distributed. Where is the concern?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt

Preamble

The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.

For the developers' and authors' protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users' and authors' sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.

Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users' freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.

Ok I thought this quote was a bit funny: "The current license for Linux requires you give back any changes you make to the open source community, but there's no way anyone can require those assurances and there's no way we'd know,"

So basically the CTO of the Linux Foundation is saying, yea so the GPL requires you to contribute code modifications back when you distribute the software, but who's going to know you've distributed software?

Its a wonder these companies are still hesitant.

I've seen the comment made that contribution of code isn't required as long as the software isn't "distributed." My question is can anybody clearly define what a distribution of software is and is not? If a large insurance company modifies software and allows its "independent contractor" agents to use the software in selling their insurance products -- is that a distribution of software? What about software as a service?