I'm confused. There was a surprise that LGPL was not seen as equiv as MIT/BSD/Apache by orgs, so I clarified with the typical example of why organizations may h

I'm confused. There was a surprise that LGPL was not seen as equiv as MIT/BSD/Apache by orgs, so I clarified with the typical example of why organizations may have default-deny rules for LGPL libraries bc the static linking restrictions, and that those default-deny rules would require devs in these orgs to get an exception. You made me curious, and this thread was enlightening to me: https://www.quora.com/Can-I-use-LGPL-in-commercial-software https://www.quora.com/Can-I-use-LGPL-in-commercial-software . Note the political & bureaucratic work that'd be involved to get a licensing exception, and then the extra SW infra work to do the above. Again, I try to keep our team technical & neutral about graph DB/lib/etc providers. We get used with a variety of tools, and I personally end up seeing areas where each invests more than others + try to keep discussions to the resulting kind of objective distinction. So I'm genuinely curious what's wrong in my summary, both wrt legal theory and what organizations do in practice. I get frustrated when projects we get pulled into (digital crime, outages, genomics, ...) get hamstrung by something like OSS licensing.