Neither of these licenses address the gigantic "internal use" loophole
FSF is also just as dogmatic as OSI in it's refusal to distinguish corporations from individuals
Edit: I'll simplify the above to "the statement in the parent comment is demonstrably not true"
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo...
So probably a court or a different upstream could interpret distribution as including distribution between employees.
All that said, I'm not sure what your calling this out was meant to imply in the context of the person you quoted?
> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
> Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
The same goes for the internal use loophole: the corporation should be required to provide its internal users with certain freedoms, and if they do that then mission accomplished.