Nice to see that other
people don't like the GPL License structure.
In the past this argument was the cause of big discussions between me
and some friends actively involved on the "Free Software Foundation" movement
and the reasons are exactly these: the GPL License has too many side effects
that could not be an advantage.
There's a step on the GPL regulation that is terrible for me and this is an
extract: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be
reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this
License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them
as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on
the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote
it."
In summary, if you are working on a project and you want to use a piece of
code released under the GPL, you're required to release your code as the same
GPL License. Similar, if you have done a good project and you want to release
your code as open source (so everyone can use it for profit or non profit
projects), by using the GPL you'll limit the others to release their code as GPL
too... Can you imagine how many people will discard your great project for this
reason? 
This is a nonsense... ok, GPL is a step to ensure
the totally freedom of software, but it's a terrible restrictions for other
developers and for projects that could benefit by using a piece of code. Ben is
right, you're forced to choose the code to use on your project not only by
checking its quality, but rather by checking the tradeoff between quality
and a restrictive license.
I've always thinked that GPL for some aspects must be revisited. When will be
the time to do so?