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.
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.