"The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to c

"The people who campaign for GPL software authors to change their license seem to assume that the authors of the software naively chose the GPL, as opposed to choosing it for its particular spirit." Sometimes they do. I've seen it happen more than once where developers chose the GPL, were asked to change it and then did saying they only chose the GPL because it seemed like a decent default because that's what Linux or whatever used. Even more common are developers who don't fully grasp the practical implications of a particular license, like making a Go library LGPL without a static linking exception, not realizing that LGPL is basically the same as GPL on a platform without dynamic linking or a toolset that is well suited to distributing pre-compiled object files to satisfy the license terms.