Please read the comments you reply to:
"Once the format is finalized, the next logical step would be to make a library version of it, which will be most probably get licensed under the LGPL v3+"
"Once the format is finalized, the next logical step would be to make a library version of it, which will be most probably get licensed under the LGPL v3+"
Basically anything copyleft is going to have a really big dropoff in use compared to say BSD, MIT or Apache 2.0.
A key attribute for companies in a heavy competitive market is that they have to use every tool available to get the best product out in least amount of development time. If a company decided to avoid a license just because of religious reasons, 10 other companies will jump into its place and out compete them.
A good example of this is when we see companies reaches out to developers directly to get permission, as the time to do that is worth compared to having developers spend time on unnecessary code. Large AAA games can easily have a long credit list of every license available that can be used in a proprietary product, including LGPLv3.
Yes, some platform holders will use it themselves, but that is not their preference. Ultimately, image encoding and decoding is a crowded market with many alternatives and I strongly believe that a copyleft-licensed component will always be passed over in favor of alternatives unless it is overwheingly compelling and a viable option.
Some companies explicitly prphibit the use of any copyleft licensed software in their development.
Certain conditions of the GPL and LGPL are impossible to fulfill on some platforms.
With that in mind, I feel like my assertions remain reasonable.