I asked because Charles Ryan wanted us to stop talking about nameless suits.
Well, to be honest, my agenda is a lot broader.
I abhor cynicism. Especially groundless cynicism. Especially especially groundless cynicism that is presented as authoritative fact by people who
have no actual insight into the matter at hand. Especially especially especially "authoritative fact" that becomes "accepted truth" on the internet, even by people who aren't particularly cynical by nature.
Whenever the old "WotC would have done [the thing I like], but the lawyers/Hasbroids/coporate suits wouldn't let them" routine is trotted out, it pushes all of my buttons. It tells me you're basing some or all of your opinion on a cynical, Dilbertian preconception of how things work in business.
See my earlier comments on the WotC legal department, and catsclaw227's cynicism-free supposition about how the GSL might have come about. As someone who's been there, I can tell you that whenever you invoke the mythical "suits" in your post, you might as well type "I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT" in 24-point type at the top of your post.
So rather than wanting you to stop talking about "nameless suits," per se, what I'd
really like is for everyone to step away from the preconception based on Dilbert cartoons, and instead approach the conversation from the perspective that decisions are made by reasoning people attempting to balance a number of legitimate factors.