> Right, so the correct conclusion is to never use
It depends on how you "use" GPL'd software. You _can_ run proprietary software on Linux. Clearly, using GPL'd and proprietary software together is legally possible.
> never contribute to
If simply contributing to projects licensed under GPL were such a huge problem, we would have industry-wide blacklists for employment. Contributing to _some_ projects can be a problem for _some_ positions but generally you are in the clear.
> never write GPL-licensed software
You, as the author, have the right to relicense code you have written yourself. GPL'ing your own code doesn't increase your legal risks.
So no, the correct conclusion is not "to never use, never contribute to and never write GPL-licensed software" and the best solution is not to "completely rid ourselves of GPL". I'm not even sure what the problem you are trying to solve is. People can and do profit off GPL'd code. It is not an instant death sentence like you seem to imply.
It depends on how you "use" GPL'd software. You _can_ run proprietary software on Linux. Clearly, using GPL'd and proprietary software together is legally possible.
> never contribute to
If simply contributing to projects licensed under GPL were such a huge problem, we would have industry-wide blacklists for employment. Contributing to _some_ projects can be a problem for _some_ positions but generally you are in the clear.
> never write GPL-licensed software
You, as the author, have the right to relicense code you have written yourself. GPL'ing your own code doesn't increase your legal risks.
So no, the correct conclusion is not "to never use, never contribute to and never write GPL-licensed software" and the best solution is not to "completely rid ourselves of GPL". I'm not even sure what the problem you are trying to solve is. People can and do profit off GPL'd code. It is not an instant death sentence like you seem to imply.