Because my issue is the sheer length and complexity of the GPL; I have read it and I do not pretend to understand it, and I don't personally as a developer want to release under a license whose implications I don't really understand. The problems just start with Section 1 and accumulate from there.

For me, the nastiest part is not really the copyleft or DRM so much as the no-linking aspect of GPL. I still don't know what precisely constitutes "linking". I don't know whether Python is in violation of the GPL because the standard library has a readline module, and I don't know if my own code is in violation of the GPL because it's written in Python. GPLv3 actually made this point a little clearer; in GPLv3 you would say "Python as a whole plus its readline library is probably GPL, but as long as you don't write 'import readline' you could probably release under something else instead." Now that there is a BSD version of readline called editline, I wonder if even that analysis holds. But the GPL makes even this analysis complicated, because if Python forgot to mention that the whole package was GPL, then actually their license to readline can potentially be revoked at any time by the readline copyright holders.

And there are some nasty parts too, like the ongoing incompatibility between the Eclipse Public License and the GPL. You now have people explaining how to get readline and wrap Clojure in a readline interface (which is allowed) because Clojure presumably isn't allowed to connect directly to readline in its own REPL.

LGPL, at least, I don't have to worry about this crap when building an application which uses yours as a tool. You can license under LGPL if you really think that GPL's legal phrasing is absolutely magnificent and you love it. I don't want to release under such an ugly license myself, and GPL forces me to violate my aesthetic principles.

So, never mind, some guy whining about GPL over here. (whistles aimlessly.)

I got distracted by the way he wrote the post.

Edit: typo