I find the FSF FAQ about the GPL (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) extraordinarily clear. Have you read it? It covers lot of the common questions people ask, including how GPL and non-GPL code interact from a legal perspective.

I've pretty much always found that every GPL argument (and I've dealt with a lot of them, having worked with GPL-licensed code in commercial products for over a dozen years) is settled by simply pointing someone to the correct portion of the FSF documentation.

Yes, Open Source and Free Software fans often don't understand the license or its implications, and more people are woefully ignorant of its meaning and purpose than actually understand it, but I don't believe the blame can be placed on the FSF documentation on the subject. As licenses go, it's pretty plainly spoken, and as clarification of licenses go, the FSF goes into extensive detail for anyone that wants to actually look into it rather than starting flame wars based on whatever crazy notion someone has about the GPL and what they want it to mean.

I really don't think the blame can be placed on the FSF in this regard. People just don't RTFM, especially TFM for licenses.

That is the document I'm talking about. I think their answers to questions about derivative works and whatnot (basically the "how do I violate the GPL without getting caught?" questions) are not entirely forthcoming. I can't fault them too much for this, as providing a truthful and complete answer would amount to being a guide to circumventing the GPL which is not in their interest, but the questions and answers are carefully phrased to avoid answering the real question you're probably asking.

There is more wiggle room than the FSF would like people to believe (although it's probably also less wiggle room than those people hope for).

Perhaps I'm just a GPL fanboy, but I don't see how it's a failing of the FAQ to provide a very clear, and understandable, path to not violating the license. And, I don't see how documenting a strict and good faith approach to following the license is in any way in conflict with the original article.

If you read the FAQ (and the license), and follow the terms clearly laid out therein, you can't possibly be in violation of the license and you can't possibly put yourself in a situation where you accidentally force your code to become Free Software (though that's a nearly impossible outcome, even if you don't understand the GPL on any level, which is the point of the original article).

The FAQ even truthfully covers the situations wherein a company might want to use the GPL for a Free Software version of their code while also retaining copyright and offering other licenses (I've had to refer to this particular FAQ many times in flame wars about my own products over the years, since I always hold the copyright on the products I'm dual-licensing, and I use the GPL for the Open Source releases), and while the ethical position of the FSF often creeps into legal discussion, the facts are still quite clear.

I'm not sure I understand why the "real question" would be "how can I use this code without distributing it under the same terms I received it under?" Aren't we assuming good faith on the part of the "victim" of the GPL?

Frankly, all the flame wars about the GPL and the FSF always seem motivated by something other than lack of clarity about the license. They seem based on disagreements with the motives of the FSF, and I find it disingenuous to make it about the license (which is clear to most people who actually read it, and among the best documented software licenses in the world for those who can't grasp its nuances merely from the license itself). If you don't like the Free Software concept, and think BSD or public domain or something else is better for you, or your business, or your customers, or whoever, then say so. Don't argue that the GPL is incomprehensible or the FSF is trying to hide facts about the GPL (the documentation for the GPL v3 is very enlightening and transparent about loopholes in v2 they've tried to close and their reasoning for the changes and additions to the license), as it really isn't.

I think you nailed it in the last paragraph. Saving it for use later (with proper credits, ofcourse).

If someone wishes to circumvent the GPL and thus disrespect the will of the generous developers who made their work available under the sole condition people don't disrespect the rights of users, I have to wonder what are they doing in the software business and whether the software business wouldn't be a better place without them.

You are not "forced to give away code" any more than you are forced to use whatever others built and generously made available to you as a starting point or as a building block under the condition you are no less generous.

Feel free to reinvent as many wheels as you like to keep for yourself.

From recent examples (Apple AppStore, Sony, Nintendo), products are usually pulled from the market rather than re-licensed, so your argument doesn't hold.