[protomikron]

Can we please stop calling out nearly every project that uses GPL (3) and call it restrictive? I know there are different opinions and arguing which is "better" nearly always leads to a philosophical debate on principles that gets us nowhere.

Sorry if this sounds snarky, and I do not blame you in particular, but it is just a theme I have encountered here the last years that I find toxic as it portrays the GPL (and FSF) as some evil organization that would restrict "developer's rights".

[jtsylve]

I don't think that the GPL or the FSF is bad or evil. I've released and maintain several projects that are GPL licensed.

GPL is by definition more restrictive than Apache and BSD, since there are more requirements to use the code, so asking if the developer is willing to consider a less restrictive (not "better") license shouldn't be met with hostility.

My motivation for asking is simply because the project looks interesting and potentially useful; however, the proprietary nature of my current work means that GPL licensed code isn't really an option for me. I absolutely wouldn't hold it against the author if they chose GPL for this or any other reason.

[protomikron]

Fair enough, I know the situation well, it just came up a lot in recent times.

[module0000]

Not sure what the OP's motivation are for asking "why GPL?", but my motivation when I ask that can translate to something like this:

"Hi, I'd like to use your library, but your license is incompatible with the other <N> licenses in my codebase. Consider BSD please?"

[llukas]

It's not like GPL v3 prevents guy from contacting the author and offering him $ for license.

[protomikron]

"Don't ask the author of a library why it is incompatible with proprietary licenses. Ask why your codebase is incompatible with open licenses."

JFK