I'll be honest, the GPL as-is is too obtuse to the extent it fails it's own premise of "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful". I agre

I'll be honest, the GPL as-is is too obtuse to the extent it fails it's own premise of "This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful". I agree with the principle that if you make improvements to the original work you MUST contribute those improvements back, and I like the fact that the GPL protects and enforces this principle. But other restrictions leaves much to be desired because they seem too idealistic to be feasible (ex. distributing your entire work under the GPL). I don't condone breaking the GPL if you disagree with it, but I believe that free and non-free software should not be mutually exclusive as the GPL intends to be; real life is not black and white.