It's anti-corporate-abuse-of-users, which in Microsoft's case is exactly the same.

A huge part of the GPL vs BSD wars were fought explicitly around balancing pro freedom vs preventing corporate takeover (and the various spawned GPLs are even more explicit).

It’s anti-corporate by purpose, but its philosophy is in opposition, or maybe just neutral, to corporate software sold for profit.

If floss takes over the world there’s no place for corporate software.

But I think it’s a false dichotomy and we will be a pluralistic state (like we are now) where there’s free/libre software that’s really popular and also corporate software where no one wants to volunteer their time to build.

But I understand how Microsoft could think that GPL is a threat to them. Linux did kind of kill (is killing) their dream of every server in the world running windowsnt.