> "b-but you should use my favourite license" instead of "that's a cool thing you've built there".
First of all, "that's cool" and "license issues" aren't mutually exclusive.
Second of all, it's a case of picking an applicable license for the place the software fits into a project. This is a low-level library (cool or not); if an author wishes to "protect" their code, LGPL was built explicitly for this purpose.
To confuse matters, in the projects own page they effectively waive all the rights of the GPL3 except for a very specific corner case.
People asking for license clarification or change are looking to simplify even _beginning_ to use the library.
What disgusting arrogance. There is no objective standard of "applicability" of any particular license to any particular piece of software. The LGPL is not "built explicitly for this purpose". The LGPL is a compromise license that exists for strategic reasons. There is no clear reason it should be applied here.
That some people may not want or be able to use this library because of its license choice may matter to you, but there's no reason to believe it matters to the authors, and you are not in a position to tell them what should matter to them.
Nothing on that page constitutes a waiver of GPLv3. It is merely an offer of an alternative license to a subset of potential users.
> but there's no reason to believe it matters to the authors
One reason may be to increase the number of folks using the library. I'm not saying that would happen, or that the original devs care, but it's conceivable, isn't it?
> and you are not in a position to tell them what should matter to them.
I'm not telling them anything -- I'm expressing an opinion and asking questions. [sidenote: isn't it ironic to be called "disgustingly arrogant" and attacked for asking questions on a matter of free speech? I think my discourse has been polite and respectful].
> Nothing on that page constitutes a waiver of GPLv3. It is merely an offer of an alternative license to a subset of potential users.
Perhaps waiver was the wrong word, but lets look at this a moment:
The offer is to everybody (barring a small (arguably dubious (enter lawyers)) subset of potential users, where (again, presumably) the license is more like MIT than GPL.
At any rate, the decision is in the hands of the authors.
> Those that want to get money with the free work of others, should give something back and most authors do offer commercial licenses when asked for.
Have you ever considered the fact that it's not all about money and proprietary software? This affect Open Source software as well. If I want to allow other to do as they will with my code, I won't touch a library with such a viral license because I don't want to subject myself or my users with having to even think about it. Also, have you considered...
> With licenses like BSD, the living proof is that most companies are leechers.
That's not a proof of anything... The same license you cite is a living proof that most companies and regular people will contribute even more than they have to without you having to force them to do anything.
 most, for some definition of most, because if a company of individual have neither the expertise nor the resources to contribute, then what good does restricting their use of the code achieve? (rhetorical question)
Anyone writing GPLv3 software to begin with would be just fine with using this license.
The question you have to ask yourself is: am I OK with releasing my software under the GPLv3, or am I OK with rewriting this library if I decide to relicense my software under some other license. If you're OK with that, then you can use this library.
I claimed it was "most likely" shitty lawyers, because 100% of the people I've heard from who genuinely can't use GPLv3 code anywhere in their work can't do so because a corporate lawyer-drone is in the way.
The rest either won't because they don't like the license, or can't by virtue of their own choices. Linus is one of these people. He has made his choices, which is his right. I (mostly) do not agree with the reasons for those choices, and would not have made the same ones, as is my right.
The identity and stature of the person who makes a choice is irrelevant, and dragging it out as if it makes my opinion invalid is absurd.
If a lawyer is the only thing stopping someone from using the library, then that person was clearly going to violate the license. Which proves my point: Those who want to steal the code will do it anyway. And those who wanted to give it a legitimate use won't even touch it. The same kids that are slapping GPLv3 to anything they build, are probably the ones breaking other people's licenses because they don't understand it. This their typical response when you call them out: "It's open source!". As if MIT/X11 open source was the same as GPLv3.
I insist: No professional programmer is going to use WhiteDB. Not for open source, not for anything. If there ever is someone willing to comply with GPLv3 just to be able to use WhiteDB, he won't even find out about the library, because nobody is using it.
> If a lawyer is the only thing stopping someone from using the library, then that person was clearly going to violate the license.
Just by saying this you prove you've never dealt with corporate lawyers. I know multiple companies where all GPLv3 software has been banned by the legal department entirely. Not just for use as part of a product. It's literally not allowed on the company's computer's at all, because the shitty lawyers who couldn't make it in the real world have decided that if the company touches GPLv3 software, all company source code is immediately GPLv3.
They are that stupid.
By the way, if your faith in corporate lawyers is so strong, why bother with courts? We can just have corporate lawyers decide everything, since they'll always get it right. Which is why there are no lawsuits where one side wins and the other side loses.
> I insist: No professional programmer is going to use WhiteDB.
Which particular term of the GPLv3 would prevent me from using WhiteDB in a web application? I'm aware of none whatsoever. Note that this is GPLv3, not AGPLv3, which does have terms which can pose a problem to web applications.
By the way, Red Hat and Canonical make GPLv3 software, contribute to GPLv3 software, and include GPLv3 software in their Linux distributions. Are you accusing their programmers of being unprofessional?
What would improve the tone of discourse is if every time someone posted a GPL'd project, the thread didn't fill up with entitled jerks whining about the terms under which they've been offered free stuff.
Except that no free stuff has been offered. A GPLv3 license is the equivalent of saying, "Hey, look at this cool thing I made! Oh, you want to use it for anything other than GPLv3 projects? Well, you can't have it!"
Forget the intent of the GPLv3. The effect of the GPLv3 has been to damage and subvert free software, rather than promote it.
I agree that it would be nice if people wouldn't spend so much time complaining that people create free software, with the request that if you use it you share your changes freely as well. I'm on your side about the actual underlying issue.
What I was requesting was that you don't use phrases like "what disgusting arrogance" and "entitled jerks whining" to make your point. You are unlikely to convince anyone with that kind of language; when people feel like they are attacked, they're a lot more likely to respond defensively than they are to be convinced by you.