If the company claims open edition then by license agreement they need to GPL their code, and Borland asks to see the full source-code for everything.

As for your description of Borland as being Mr. Nice Guy when it comes to software licensing, everyone fucks up from time to time, and that is exactly what they did here.

And the obvious answer to your corporate risk manager question is that they don't work in a vacuum. If the CEO, key users, etc are absolutely wedded to Microsoft, then the corporate risk manager will have a hard time explaining why you aren't using Microsoft software. This word processor is crappy. We have to retrain everyone we hire, and it is a constant pain converting documents for everyone else. And I don't understand this Leenooks thingy...

The result is that people who know better, who would love to tell Microsoft to take a hike, don't dare. By contrast it is much easier to junk Borland's development tools. (You want to get rid of what? Never heard of it, why do you think I care?) This is exactly the effect that makes Microsoft an 800 pound gorilla while Borland weighs in at 3 ounces. It is easier for the corporate risk manager to say, "This license stinks, we aren't going to use this." and make it stick.

Ben