Note: Not trying to convince you, just making my point clear
My main problem (and likely that of others) with the GPL is the viral clause, forcing all projects that include (static link) the GPL'ed object to use the GPL themselves. It is that requirement that I find unreasonable, especially in the context of age writing.
Age writers are primarily creative people (artists), and quite a number of them are not familiar with software style licenses, or that using GPL objects requires you to GPL your age too, and provide the blend files.
It's not a bad thing to provide the blend files, but it's something that everyone should have the freedom to decide for themselves
if,
how and
why they provide their .blend files.
On top of that it's a bit impractical to be forced to provide the blend files at all times, with our current setups.
Important:
While I think it's everyone's personal choice to decide which license to provide objects under, I do think that in the case of the GPL it should be made explicitly clear: You cannot use the models without putting your age under GPL too, which includes making the blend file available.
This is because as stated above, many age writers do not know what using a GPL'ed object implies.
Note:
In the context of computersoftware I can understand the idea behind the viral clause (in the historical and philosophical context of the FSF).
But I do think that it restricts freedom, instead of ensuring it. (Yes, I disagree on that point with the designers of the GPL, though I understand their POV)
And for my own projects I prefer the LGPL, or simpler licenses.
One day I ran through the cleft for the fiftieth time, and found that uru held no peace for me anymore.