It still makes sense though. In many cases, especially in digital design, circuits look like islands of isolated components where the labels are actually defining the connections between them.
[0] To be fair I'm not a professional electrical engineer, maybe there are expensive databases that I don't have access to. I personally always thought that EDA tools have a natural business opportunity where they give you the razor for free (the EDA software) and sell you the razor blades (e.g. part libraries).
https://dl.espressif.com/dl/schematics/esp32_devkitc_v4-sch....
The quality however is meh.
Libraries are a very touchy subject. Most of the time, outsiders to the field just want "plug and play".
Professionals in the field? Holy fucking hell can we get neurotic. In a large company you may have more than one person dedicated just to managing libraries and drawing them to your standards instead of letting the internet do it. And there's a whole list of reasons why one may do it vs. not do so. (Schematics are a form of design expression and as such there are many standards and thoughts on optimal forms of expression, including dependency on the particular sub-industry you are)
No different than software engineers having their favorite programming language, markup language, config file language, code style guidelines, deployment workflows, etc.
We already provide the 'plug and play' version which looks quite alot like LCSC data and is certainly good enough for playing around with. Id really like to put some effort into standardizing this in the mid-term, seems pretty crazy to me that there are way more footprints designs out there than actual packages.
Currently working on a pipeline to generate a whole bunch of these automatically, stick them on some big test boards and make sure they actually work. We will be selling razor blades, and will have the test data to show they work.