And the GNU Public License prevents a party from capitalizing on the work as "intellectual property". By using the laws of IP and turning them around, GPLicensed software can't legally be implemented within any system that is not available at no charge, with the source code, and with the same GPL.
This is specifically what pissed off Microsoft - they can't steal the innovations of GPLicensed software and incorporate them into their own software and sell it to make money. Corporations fight these battles with other corporations all the time for sure, but in this case they were forced to lobby Congress to outlaw the GPL as a principle...
So it isn't so much that open source software is often available at no charge, but the licensing, which Microsoft called "insidious". The impact from removing a few sales of Windows XP from MS's banksheet is not as large as creating this model for software development where the software is protected from expropriation.
Of course there is recognition that the impacts of the GPL are still minimal at best to the rest of the non-software-developing planet. The corporation where I am employed has gone from open-source phobic to willing to invest capital in it, but only because we've shown how it can improve the bottom line for the capitalists who run *this* corporation. My personal motivation is that it makes my work for my wage a more intellectually stimulating experience, but I don't kid myself that this is the reason it is actually accepted by my employer. And I am vigilant to keep my open source work to very little beyond what my employer pays me to do, because it isn't as interesting to me as what I do in my leisure time.
Matt
-- PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 icq: 120941588 http://blogdayafternoon.com yahoo msg: beyondzero123
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
-Hamlet