I was only saying that putting supporting code under a different license gives more freedom of choice for interested developers. And I was saying IMHO
- so what's your problem
As you understand, I don't think that the GPL is a good license for sharing. It's just because it has a viral clause that forces you to put your source code under GPL as well. Consider someone writing an application that he wants to put under BSD (an osi approved open source license!). As soon as he links to a GPLed jar, he can't do that anymore. But he isn't stealing or changing or hiding the code, he is just linking to some unmodified functionality and will distibute the full source, so why should he be forced to use the GPL for his own code?
I think you gave the answer yourself: political motivation - and that IMHO
And regarding the "advertising" for another project, I was just suggesting to think about a collective effort for model loaders - if you aren't interested, it's your personal choice...
Edit: couldn't resist to write some more than just holy crap, like I did in the first place
I have tried to find some people to help me on my project and a student might write a software component for it in some months, it is a collective product, it is a result of a collective effort as I asked for help sometimes (many people have helped me mainly for the tests) and I repeat that my source code has been reused. I suggested to add one of my loaders in JOGLUtils (but the creators refused, they said they don't need a MD3 loader), therefore you can't say I'm not interested in collective effort for model loaders!
I chose to restrict a little bit the freedom of all the developers (by the viral clause) in order to prevent anyone from restricting hugely the freedom of all the developers, it is a fair choice on my view, it prevents anyone from improving the library BUT
not opening the source code. I think that if you share your code with others, the others should share their source codes too. The GPL is a way of trying to do it.
I'm a free human being, I'm free to defend my ideas. I know that some people here are interested in LGPL libraries to get the "best" of the two worlds:
the collective effort of the open source world and the possibility of using them to make money by selling closed source products. I don't know why it would be a shame to have some political motivations as many people here implicitly
speak about politics whereas I told you explicitly
that I chose the license to defend my convictions. I hate this lack of transparency.
I like something viral that forces people to share.