There are plenty of benefits to being able to read the code without the ability to distribute it. Two things come immediately to mind:
1. Is the software secure? Are there gaping security holes riddled through the source? Think about all the times you hear about people "working on getting the project ready for open source". Often this is due to vulnerabilities that are ticking time bombs waiting to go off as soon as the security by obscurity clock runs out.
2. There may be GPL code in the source that is being used in violation of the license. I would not be at all surprised if a significant chunk of closed proprietary software is using GPL code, but no one knows because they cannot read the source.
Both of these points are moot if you simply avoid proprietary software altogether RMS style, but only a tiny fraction of users are going to do that. Of course, these benefits are also the reasons why this will never happen.
1. Is the software secure? Are there gaping security holes riddled through the source? Think about all the times you hear about people "working on getting the project ready for open source". Often this is due to vulnerabilities that are ticking time bombs waiting to go off as soon as the security by obscurity clock runs out.
2. There may be GPL code in the source that is being used in violation of the license. I would not be at all surprised if a significant chunk of closed proprietary software is using GPL code, but no one knows because they cannot read the source.
Both of these points are moot if you simply avoid proprietary software altogether RMS style, but only a tiny fraction of users are going to do that. Of course, these benefits are also the reasons why this will never happen.