I never inferred other people should choose a specific license, but rather stated the fact GPL can contaminate large bodies of work completely unrelated to community projects (mostly v3 I take issue with). The state of Steam game compatibility is a demonstration of the conflicting use-cases hobbling a platforms potential.

In my opinion LGPL is better for libraries as if you modify lib source it obligates community participation, but doesn't force your entire project into public view when a linker touches the wrong GPL lib.

We can disagree, and from each perspective believe we are correct. I'll stick with Apache 2.0, as its better suited for my projects.

Enhance your calm. =)

Nothing in the GPL/LGPL requires this, only distributing sources down to your users, who may or may not then redistribute the sources back upstream to the community.

The project contamination happens even with the LGPL.

The subject was contaminating licenses, and why they are not appropriate in some situations. Cheers =)

Sure, I was just pointing out a misconception in your understanding of these licenses. They only require distributing downstream to your users, not back to the upstream community.

I go by the lawyers consensus, not some opinion on the internet from some unknown region of the world. Note, the user-base doesn't care, they only want a program to work on their platform. Some upstream publishers on the other hand can be disrespectful at times, as some can assume the worst... it usually has nothing to do with the FOSS foundations themselves.

Thanks for your opinion though, it is good to see people still interested in community projects. Happy computing, =)