Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the GPL. It's just not for everything. The GPL does in fact require to make your changes public, if you release the application publicly. This isn't a problem with the license mind you. If this is what the original author of the code intended, then the license is working just fine.
I personally find this argument of which license is most "free" (libre or beer) to be an idiotic one. As the author of code, don't pick a license simply because it's most "free". Pick a license based strictly on what you want the end user to be able to do with both the code and binary. End of discussion.
Until we see alternative OSes based on alternative licenses take a bigger spot than LInux, the GPL is in no danger.
It's always annoyed me when people have spoken about the GPL as if it's a living, breathing, entity. It is a license and nothing more, not a culture, nor a way of life.
Unless the GPL is found to not be legally binding, the GPL as a license will never be in danger of anything.
NOTE: Please don't take this as a personal attack. Had I mod points I'd mod you insightful for everything else you had to say.