They should pick whichever license they are comfortable with, that is their right as the copyright holders. The fact that this is all open source at all is amaz

They should pick whichever license they are comfortable with, that is their right as the copyright holders. The fact that this is all open source at all is amazing! If my understanding is correct, the software is licensed under the GPLv3 which means that someone else can already re-use any portion of the code in another (GPLv3-compatible) open source app. My personal preference is the LGPL, which attempts to protect the openness of the code while allowing commercial use. The FSF covers their position on this briefly in their discussion on choosing the right license for a project: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html > allowing proprietary software developers to use the covered library, > but providing a weak copyleft that benefits users when they do but they also explain how they prefer to leverage useful functionality to help the spread of free software: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, > we can help each other's free software packages outdo the > proprietary alternatives