My job isn't to advise users on legal matters nor promote graph-tool, though I do try to increase awareness of options in general as a neutral technical party. The graph-tool's community's decision to use & stick to a relatively unpopular license (outside of academia), and the ensuing issues around legal, practical, and perception... are problems for the graph-tool community to address, not me.
We OSS our work as MIT/BSD/Apache because that's what our users accept and pay us to do. That's all that's in our control.
This has nothing to do with promoting graph-tool, but not promoting disinformation, as you have been doing.
This is shameful FUD against LGPL based on blatant nonsense.
If you do this in a public forum, I can only imagine what you promote to your customers.
Lost a lot of respect for Graphistry during this interchange.
Again, I try to keep our team technical & neutral about graph DB/lib/etc providers. We get used with a variety of tools, and I personally end up seeing areas where each invests more than others + try to keep discussions to that kind of objective distinction. So am genuinely curious what's wrong in my summary, both wrt legal theory and what organizations do in practice. I get frustrated when projects we help on (digital crime, outages, genomics, ...) get hamstrung by something like OSS licensing.