Oh, got it. Sorry, when you originally wrote "Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead" I di

Oh, got it. Sorry, when you originally wrote "Many corporations don't distribute GPL derived software to users, but "package" it as a web service instead" I didn't get the connection that they were packaging it as a web service because they were deriving from GPL'd base. I was coming from the position that companies offer their products as web services, rather than distributing the program itself, because it allows them to lock their customers in, and track what their customers are doing, and hold their customers data hostage, and basically do all the shitty stuff that web services companies do. And some of them happen to base these services on GPL'd code, because the GPL doesn't prevent that - just like MIT. It didn't occur to me that a company would write a program that they wanted to sell as a redistributable entity, but be so dependent on a particular GPL'd library that they could not find a commercial equivalent of, or rewrite the essential parts they needed themselves, that they'd change their whole sales/availability strategy and reluctantly make the program a web service instead. Hence my misunderstanding. My bad.