Economists argue that licensing software enables companies to sell it to different groups at different prices. For example, if they gave nonprofits a cheap version, but did not include a restrictive license, the nonprofit could then resell the software to a for-profit company at a discount to the corporate price (but above the nonprofit price). Therefore, the software company would need to sell the software at the same price to everyone, which limits the profits the company can make and reduces the number of customers who can use the software (as some customers are priced out of the market). Both consumers and producers lose. (Drug companies operate under similar economics. -- NY Times, subscription needed).
This argument makes no sense in the open-source development model, where the value-added comes from related services in a secondary market. Complex licensing schemes, when enforced through draconian methods, worsen the quality of the ownership experience, and help level the field between open-source and closed-source software.
Also, note that the school in the article above needed more copies of Windows solely to read word docs sent over from head office. Why should someone have to pay $200 to read word documents? Microsoft's upgrade policy purposefully introduces obsolescence and reduces the quality of software.