Is there a problem with corporations that have no intention to contribute source code back to the public adopting zero-GPL policies? It seems that this conveys more of a disadvantage upon them than the presumed alternative (they use GPLed code with abandon to build more closed-source products more easily, knowing that if caught they can always weasel themselves out of any consequences by a "curing" process), resulting in closed-source software being of lower quality, resulting in fewer incentives for users to run it and more market share and eyeballs for open-source software, which is an outcome well-aligned with the preferences of the typical developer who puts their software under GPL.
If you're talking about using GPL software in-house, that's perfectly fine. The GPL only requires you make changes available to those that you distribute the software to. So if you download GPL software, make changes to it or integrate it into your own program, and then you keep all that strictly in-house (only your own company employees can see it and use it), that's not a GPL violation, and you don't have to give your changes (or other software linked to it) to anyone outside the company.
