That's a problem with people, not with the LGPL. Would you sign a contract without reading it through? The same goes for software licenses. Suggesting an altern

That's a problem with people, not with the LGPL. Would you sign a contract without reading it through? The same goes for software licenses. Suggesting an alternative license doesn't absolve people of the responsibility of reading the suggested text in the first place. The language of most of common software licenses is straightforward; blindly using any license without being aware with their implications, especially in a commercial capacity, is... stupid. Beyond that, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you're familiar with the four freedoms of the GNU free software definition [1], then licenses that are nonfree and non-copyleft do not ensure the four freedoms for users of the software. The (L)GPL has been carefully crafted to ensure those those freedoms. Although that might not matter to you personally, preserving those freedoms is important for many people. [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html