I apologize for the late reply, I have been out of state making a pitch, and enjoying the scenery after it was accepted.

I can see your viewpoint. I do remember the anti-linux Microsoft days, and I did not enjoy them as a company back then. However, I do think viral is an apt description of the license, despite the objections in this thread. As I mentioned before I left, I think viral is a good description of GPL. Viral is a feature, not a consequence. If you choose GPL, it's because you want that viral nature. If you're a company, you'll have to weigh that license against your business concerns.

Zealots may say something like "every piece of code should be open source in all circumstances", but pragmatists will realize that some code just doesn't make sense as open source, and making all derivatives of that open source.

So, long story short, someone who is in charge of open source consulting should understand better than anyone else that the GPL isn't appropriate for all companies. If the changed code is patented, GPL isn't appropriate in any circumstance, like it or not.