There is no supposition about tyranny here. It used to be that the GPLv2 allowed use of libraries in applications so long as any adjustments to the library cont

There is no supposition about tyranny here. It used to be that the GPLv2 allowed use of libraries in applications so long as any adjustments to the library contributed back to the project. This was fair and reasonable, even when working on a commercial project. With GPLv3 you can no longer use GPL software, even as a library, in non-GPL software. [1] There's one exception, but it doesn't really apply to PHP libraries/applications (because there's no distinction between either in PHP; it's all source code). [2] I never said that a developer isn't entitled to their choice of license. In fact, I fully support and encourage that. But choosing GPLv3 and then expecting people to use the library is a conflict of terms. I have equal rights to yours over how I license my code—at least until I pick the GPL. [2] So, attempting to dictate what license I use when writing my code by including a "viral" copy-left clause in your license is tyrannical and arrogant. I do have to eat. So if my only choices are GPL licensed libraries and a project we can't release source for, all you GPL-only guys make me waste my time writing a proprietary library. I absolutely resent the copy-left. And I won't ever use the GPL because I won't inflict such terms upon anyone, commercial or open-source users of my libraries or software. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL [2]: Bear in mind that my day-job is writing PHP code, and all distribution of libraries and software is in source form. The GPLv3 has special exceptions for statically linked languages loading the library dynamically, but in PHP the whole application is (arguably) in source form and always loaded dynamically.