> My point is about the clause in the GPL that enforces developers to enclose the source of their entire software, not just the library.
I'm well aware of it. Everybody is. It's a term of the license. Just like "You must pay us $5000 to use this library" would be.
> And lets not nitpick here, the GPL isn't exactly subtle about these things.
Nitpick about what? Subtle about what? What are you talking about?
> No. It's their right to choose whatever license they wish, but it's also my right to not choose their software.
It certainly is.
But you said it's "bad". But it wouldn't be "bad" if they hadn't made it available under a free license at all.
This seems like a hypocritical and extremely entitled attitude. Under what moral code is it bad to offer alternative prices for alternative terms?