[xamuel]

Suppose for whatever reason (employer legal department, etc.) you can't use GPLd sourcecode.

You'll quickly find that GPL sourcecode is not just neutral to you, it's outright harmful. Why? Because if there's a strong project that's GPL'd, that disincentivizes anyone from working on a less restrictive open-source version of same. So now that funny "satire", as you put it above, is forcing you to reinvent wheels, when you could be using that effort to further improve the world.

[nmrm2]

when you could be using that effort to further improve the world.

Except that by "improve the world", you actually mean "make a quick(er) buck for ourselves".

By the same logic, your company charging for their software (or not open-sourcing it) is "outright harmful" to people who want to use your company's software to make themselves a quick buck for themselves.

Except that you can at least read and learn from the GPL code when making your own implementation. Somehow I doubt your GPL-hostile employer is taking even that small step toward improving the world.

[s73v3r]

Then you should convince your employer that they're wrong with that ban. If they don't wish to pay the fee for using the work of others, then they need to make their own, just like anything else in the world.

[c22]

Or rather, it's forcing your closed-minded employer to reinvent wheels. Is it possible to improve the world while working for an employer that cannot embrace GPL? Opinions on this subject differ.

[davidgerard]

No, your employer is forcing you to reinvent wheels. Employers hating the GPL are not some sort of natural law.