SpaceX proves that you are wrong.

Sure. But the same is true about GOTOs. You CAN write reliable code using GOTOs, if you have self discipline. But in practice 99% of code with GOTOs is abused. Hence the idiom "GOTO is evil".

Spread sheet is evil.

Now, may I have the returned glasses (for free)?

I downloaded the library to see some random code. Here is the very first file I (randomly) chose (putw.c):

#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include
int putw(int x, FILE *f)
{
return (int)fwrite(&x, sizeof x, 1, f)-1;
}

Cheers.

Now troll is the story itself.
Nice.

On the contrary. 99 years copyright is a very recent phenomenon.

The thing is that if Struktur AG has all the patents involved, then under GPL (and LGPL) the authors automatically give all recipients a license to all the patents (if I understand the legalese of GPL correctly).

Remember Clarke's Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws):
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

OK, DeGrasse is not elderly (just 55 years old), but still...

I will repeat my argument. If you don't want to use GPL, for whatever reason, more power to you. I respect your right to publish your code under the license you choose. I hope you respect my right to publish my code under GPL.
If I don't accept your license, I will not use your code. If you don't accept GPL, nobody forces you, or your clients, to use my code. As I said I am sure there are many commercial options.
About your example. Assuming that you used my GPL software, you would be just one of my clients. Thus if you gave me back any changes you made, but I could not redistribute them, it would be not enough a compensation. I want to be able to redistribute the code so that I get more contributions from others.
By the way, if you client combined your code (you give your clients the source as you said) with GPL code, it would not be a problem at all. Since you forbid them to redistribute your code anyway, GPL explicitly allows them to change GPL code, without giving anything back.

You are obviously a troll.
I make GPL software. I want to help my neighbors, even you. You may not want to, or you may have other reasons for not making GPL software. More power to you. I respect your right, and I hope you respect my right to publish my software under the license I choose.
You can take my GPL software and use it freely and copy it to all the computers at your office. You can make changes to my software and you are not forced to publish the changes as long as you keep the changes within your office. I allow you to do so.
But if you want to publish my software with any changes you made, I want compensation for my hard work. I don't want your money, you may be a poor student. I want the changes you made, so that I can use them too. This is the license that I chose about my software, and I hope again that you respect it.
Otherwise, please don't use my software. Nobody is forcing you to do so, and certainly not me. There are more than plenty commercial options. Choose one, or make your own.
But the way I see it, is that you complain because you want to profit from my hard work without the compensation I asked for. To paraphrase your argument, you want to take a bite out of my donut, without paying.

After Oracle's suit against Google about Java, I am not going to touch Java again.

Genetic algorithms is just another numerical optimization method programed by human programmers. The computer did nothing by itself. I am sure that the same results (perhaps a little better but at the cost of more time according to literature) can be obtained by simulated annealing. Definitely not AI.
AI is when the computer learns from previous experience. GA do nothing like that.

Impressive and cool!

I know this is going to mod me down, but it is my experience and I am too old to be a fan boy.
Used Linux (SuSE, Ubuntu). Tried windoze (vista). Couldn't get peripherals, such as hp photosmart 7350 to work. Reverted to Linux. Tried windoze (7). Couldn't get peripherals, such as hp 7350 to work. Reverted to Linux. Staying with Linux.

Seriously? Where I work the single program that keeps us from all day linux is autocad. We have 50 licenses of autocad 2005 running in xp machines. We do not plan to upgrade as autocad newer versions has nothing more that would justify 4500 Euros for each license. Windows vista doesn't run it. Windows 7 doesn't run it (linux/wine does run a version of it). About drivers, I do have an hp photosmart 7350. Windows 7 does not have a driver and even HP says there is no driver for Windows 7. Linux does have a full feature driver and it has had it since ages. Linux has more drivers than Windows and MacOS, and it has them right from the start when you install it. This is my experience, but then again I am not a gamer.