Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are only so many options here. Either: * You are lying that you read the license. * You were lying about what the license says. * You really dont want to admit that you have misunderstood the license. Either way, you were wrong then and you are wrong now about what the lawyers think. Speaking of which, there are only a few possibilities here as well, only these are not mutually exclusive: * You are intentionall…
>You were lying about what the license says. I was reporting what I was told by corporate lawyers. My own reading of the patent section does happen to side with the lawyers' reading: That if you distribute an app that's protected by a patent you own a license to, that you need to arrange a sublicense for all users of that software. Maybe not technically "impossible," but I didn't count "spending millions of dollars t…
Companies wouldn't adopt things under "GPLv3", but they wouldn't a permit GPLv2 either. Or LPGL. Or Apache 2. Or MIT, or BSD, or any license. They permit nothing short of contributors assigning them copyright and the patents, just them (see eg. Webkit's and Chromium's copyright notices and CLAs). And yet, libpng is under a license. So yeah, I agree they'd write their own library - out of their selfishness. Let them.
With the "adopting a web standard" thing you're attempting to further move goal posts. But you fail, and not because your implication that standard bodies would accept permissive licenses is wrong - which it is, because they're exclusively public domain + patent clause (oh and the people building browsers still contribute somehow). You fail because you're mixing apples and oranges again; programs are not parts of standards. Standards describe file formats, and prescribe behavior of programs that process them. They are not concerned with implementations' licenses.
The spec can become a public domain standard, and all would still be well with the library under (L)GPLv3+. Free software should have the edge.