Putting GPL-covered programs together with non-free programs in a collection such as an operating system does not violate the GPL, and Corel is not the first to do this. I think this is a harmful practice, and that even Debian goes too far in this direction, but there is no use singling out Corel for criticism.
Making people agree to a license with conditions about the use of the non-free programs, as part of obtaining the GPL-covered programs, might be a violation, but I am not sure. **As long as the license imposes no conditions on the use of the GPL-covered programs, other than the GPL,** one can argue that this is simply a way of choosing to distribute the GPL-covered programs only to those who are customers for the others. That is legitimate. I think the crucial question here is, has Corel written significant new free software? And what license(s) are they using for it?
