Corel: No "internal" exemption in GPL

[Justin Wells]

Regarding Corel and licensing:

Some people claim that because the Corel testers are some manner
of consultants, it is an "internal" thing and therefore not covered
by the GPL.

I see nothing in the GPL that makes any exemption for internal copying. 
Presumably if I give a copy of GPL'd code to someone else inside my 
company, they get that under the GPL. 

Other software licenses don't have automatic exemptions just because you 
are making the copy internally. Companies have to pay for multiple licenses
if they want to have multiple copies. Why would the GPL have some special
automatic exemption that other licenses do not?

In fact it says this:

     4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
   except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
   otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
   void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
   However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
   this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
   parties remain in full compliance.

So since it isn't explicitly mentioned in the license, there is no such
exemption. It looks like Corel is trying to "sublicense" limited
rights to contractors, and this is forbidden.

It also looks like those contractors are entitled to ignore Corel's license,
since it is void, and distribute under the GPL anyway, and that Corel 
can't do anything about that.

Worse still if this goes unchallenged it sets a precedent. You cannot 
later go and claim that Evil Corp. isn't allowed to do the same thing: 
Evil Corp. will claim that you made an exception for Corel, and it is 
unfair discrimination against them--they'd likely win with that argument,
you are not allowed to single people out and discriminate against them,
you have to apply the same principle to everyone.

I'd like to hear what someone at the FSF thinks of all this.

Justin