The clause should simply say that you must afford all who use and copy the software the same rights, our you would lose the rights to distribute the software. So, if MS/Novell continues their effort to create two classes of linux users, Novell would lose the right to distribute GPL v 3.0 software.

It shouldn't be hard to see what the community objects to here: the GPL is all about sharing, and this agreement basically says that some users of the software would have the same rights to use the software as others have.

Mr E, do you think FOSS firms should share technical documentation with one another, best practices, business plans.

And how would you comment on some FOSS firms receiving VC money, and others struggling. Now thats not fair is it. Also, should there be some kind of profit sharing among FOSS companies.

I can't make any sense of Moglen's statement at all. Since Microsoft doesn't use or affix the GPL to anything, how can any wording in the GPL bind Microsoft (or anyone else) not to sue someone?

It strikes me that a conditional covenant is just that. It may or may not be worthless, but it can hardly be high-jacked, any more than the GPL can high-jack the copyright of another (and vice versa).