While the OP shouldn't have used "venemous", calling it FUD, and then calling the target of the insult the "best" in some respect with nothing to back it up is only slightly better from the perspective use useful conversation. How about explaining your rationale behind why LGPL is the best solution and addressing the more rational concerns brought up, so we can move this conversation past the "No, mine is better!" stage?

Because there are other places to discuss this than this thread.

Sure, there are always other places to discuss something, but that doesn't mean this isn't a good place. Some of the best discussions I've seen or been part of here have been tangential to the original post, as discussions drift. I think the bar here is heavily weighted towards useful, instead of relevant, and relevance is almost always debatable.

To be clear, I don't think anyone minds a civil discussion on the LGPL vs BSD licenses, as long as it's also factual. I wouldn't.

FUD! It's a fine place.

I apologize for using a term that is derisive. I'd be fine if contributing back was the only requirement. The other terms however at the very least inconvenience developers in how they build and deploy applications, and at worst simply exclude entire platforms. Therefore, I disagree that LGPL is 'the best' for contributing back because the MPL maximizes utility and potential targets. On the other hand with the additional LGPL terms, I don't see how they improve the 'contributing back' part. They instead extend additional user level freedoms which in my opinion are orthogonal to contribution. I'm not starting a permissive/restrictive flamewar here, both the MPL and LGPL have a very similar flavor so I think its fair to compare them.

Most developers I know use the LGPL only because they want any improvements contributed back and not because they want to restrict linking or platforms. Plenty of LGPL libraries come with linking exceptions, and lots of devs don't even know about potential platform limitations.