It's not about optimisation, it's simply about future (or even current) programmers being able to understand the code. That code is not understandable.

Holdup, that means that the Linux kernel can't include code licensed under the GPLv2, because it itself is not licensed under GPLv2, right?

Isn't this what NVIDIA does with it's kernel drivers? I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet... Rob.

The spirit of the GPL is that if someone doesn't like anything about your product, be it functionality, bugs, distribution methods or anything else, they can fork the project and do things their way.

For that reason I don't believe that the OP is not "in the spirit of GPL."

A number of years ago I went to my local news agency and bought a copy of Red Hat for ~AUD$30, perfectly legally and in the spirit of GPL. If it wasn't for that copy of Red Hat my entrance into the wonderful world of Linux, and by extension GPL, would've taken significantly longer. Sure there was a bit of documentation included that the distributor incurred costs for, but the OP incurred costs in bringing this GPL product to market too.

I am a little befuddled by those who claim that what you are doing is not in the spirit of the GPL. The fact that they aren't putting up some of their own dosh in order to release it in the App Store for free says something, though.

(Also, I am not a fan of GPLv3 as it removes freedom from software. Imho GPLv3 is not in the spirit of GPL)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't power-per-calculation actually be hurt by that? If you do this, you might end up with 50 racks drawing 50kW (for instance). Yet you'd actually be able to do the same number of calculations, with _less_ power, if you had 40 racks drawing 45kW. Rob.