How is it a separate discussion?

Ooh it's one of those "fact-check" articles. Welp.. pack it up boys...

Fertilizer is toxic to humans and easily absorbed via skin. Vegetables are thoroughly washed before being sold.

Who's we here? You're getting downvoted to oblivion because of your hostility. I am merely replying in kind.

You're a dumbass who can't read and doesn't understand foss.

Show us where the dev said exactly that.

You're asking me to show me where the dishonest person admitted to being dishonest.

Apparently you want me to point out where I took the developer's words but intentions are not words. You're deliberately trying to argue that I am accusing the dev of things they did not do, but that's not true. I am only arguing on their actions and assigning motive to their actions which I make clear in all my comments.

You're the one who is calling people entitled for expecting LGPL code to be FOSS. I am merely replying to your comments.

Only to a certain extent.

The problem is that a lot of software is very complex and requires full-time development/maintenance. It's simply not possible to work on stuff for free unless this is just a hobby and you can sustain yourself with a main job.

The main thing I have a problem with this instance is the following sequence of events

1. The developer licensed it as LGPL.
2. They did not accept ANY contributions to the code.
3. The project became popular enough for people to post about in the fediverse (quite popular then, I guess)
4. They got donations for their work, but apparently it was not enough.
5. They removed the project from being accessible and moved to a paid only model.

This tells me:

1. Their intention all along was to abuse FOSS community for popularity, traction, clout and free testing by people who are also doing this stuff in their free time.
2. They got donations, but for whatever reason it was not enough for them. => Were they expecting to make retirement level income from their project which is in a crowded segment?

No

Edit: the one with the round ball

No, have faith. I am one of the people who would rather starve than work at Facebook and Oracle.

My point is that the design is wrong. Nobody expects [] as lvalue to update a value. Your argument is descriptive, mine is prespcriptive. I am saying that the C++ committee is wrong on this one (or whoever designed it this way)

Are you just throwing networking terms together? How does a LAG prevent a switching loop?