The idea behind the GPL is not that bad - if you're going to fork a project, for example, then don't be a bastard and keep the same license. But if you take a small portion (not trivial enough to not be considered a derivative work, but still not the main function of the program), then forcing the GPL terms on it seems overkill.

For example: a game. If you're going to fork the game, then yes, it would make sense to keep the GPL license. You're essentially making a modification to the original software, after all. Now, let's say you only want a part of it. Let's say you borrow the sound code. Obviously, the sound code doesn't make up the entire game. Yet obviously it isn't a trivial part of the code, so it'd be considered a derivative work. Considering the main function of the game isn't the sound code (in fact, it's likely you could play the game without sound!), forcing the same license upon it (and scattering it into all of the new project) would be overkill.

For example: a game. If you're going to fork the game, then yes, it would make sense to keep the GPL license. You're essentially making a modification to the original software, after all. Now, let's say you only want a part of it. Let's say you borrow the sound code. Obviously, the sound code doesn't make up the entire game. Yet obviously it isn't a trivial part of the code, so it'd be considered a derivative work. Considering the main function of the game isn't the sound code (in fact, it's likely you could play the game without sound!), forcing the same license upon it (and scattering it into all of the new project) would be overkill.

The author of the sound code has graciously allowed you license to view and distribute modified versions of their copyrighted code. Should you chose to not abide by the license grant and abrogate the copyright of the code, you have trampled on the moral and legal rights of the author. You are in the realm dubbed "piracy" in some circles. It doesn't matter if it's just a "little bit" of stealing, it's still stealing.

You are in the realm dubbed "piracy" in some circles. It doesn't matter if it's just a "little bit" of stealing, it's still stealing.

Oh wow, way to go, I wasn't saying "borrow code without following the license just because it's a little". I was saying that the GPL is good when applied to entire things, but when it comes to just small pieces of the code, it's overkill. I was discussing about a disadvantage of the GPL.

I patented [font="Courier New"]for(int i=0; i<10; i++) [/font][font="Arial"]for the greater good, which is myself.[/font]

The idea behind the GPL is not that bad - if you're going to fork a project, for example, then don't be a bastard and keep the same license. But if you take a small portion (not trivial enough to not be considered a derivative work, but still not the main function of the program), then forcing the GPL terms on it seems overkill.

For example: a game. If you're going to fork the game, then yes, it would make sense to keep the GPL license. You're essentially making a modification to the original software, after all. Now, let's say you only want a part of it. Let's say you borrow the sound code. Obviously, the sound code doesn't make up the entire game. Yet obviously it isn't a trivial part of the code, so it'd be considered a derivative work. Considering the main function of the game isn't the sound code (in fact, it's likely you could play the game without sound!), forcing the same license upon it (and scattering it into all of the new project) would be overkill.

While it does get a bit silly when you're only using a small portion of the code its normally not a big problem, most libraries and engines have more permissive licenses anyway.

The GPL only really benefits the end users(as its intended), as a developer you have to pay with your own code to use theirs which generally means that its only worth it if you are primarily modifying other peoples work or if you want others to modify your work but don't want them to keep their improvements to themselves,
This can be worthwhile if you're giving the software away for free anyway to support your main business, for commercial games its normally not a great idea. (The last thing you want is to compete with free versions of your own game)


As for the OPs question about whats best, it really depends on what code it is.

If the code is intended to be used as a part of a larger product you should use a very permissive license, you don't want to create for example a new image format for the web and then choose a license that prevents Microsoft from supporting your format-

If its a complete product i'd say go with the GPL, end users benefit far more from improvements being kept open in the long run than they do from having proprietary forks sold to them and the few developers who do benefit by being able to sell proprietary forks are too few to matter.

For example: a game. If you're going to fork the game, then yes, it would make sense to keep the GPL license. You're essentially making a modification to the original software, after all. Now, let's say you only want a part of it. Let's say you borrow the sound code. Obviously, the sound code doesn't make up the entire game. Yet obviously it isn't a trivial part of the code, so it'd be considered a derivative work. Considering the main function of the game isn't the sound code (in fact, it's likely you could play the game without sound!), forcing the same license upon it (and scattering it into all of the new project) would be overkill.

I can't say I'd be very comfortable doing this - not necessarily moral grounds, but more on a legal front.

Here is an analogy: Let's say you had access to a closed source project, developed by a private firm. You decided to splice some parts of that code into your own project in the same manner as you have described. If the firm (i.e. the legal owner of the original code) found out, how do you think they will react? Chances are they will pursue legal action of some sort. Technically, I don't think GPL derived work is any different in that respect; the owners of the work could (and should) take similar legal action against you.

Now, as for analysing GPL code, i.e.. exploring the relationships and the organisation of the algorithms, and then using that knowledge to rewrite your own implementation from scratch, is a different story all together.