Sorry, I was not precise. I was describing a case in which there is a dependency on a code under a license which is GPL compatible and not compatible with LGPL. So I meant "simpler" in that context. I agree that for projects with no such dependency there would be no difference in "difficulty".
I'm looking at the flexibility from a developer point of view. My point is that GPL is compatible with more licenses than LGPL. So under GPL more code can be used. There is always an option to change LGPL to GPL to use that extra code. But as long as you stay with LGPL, some code remains unaccessible to you. So with respect to what code can be included, and if I understood you correctly this is what we were talking about, the GPL is more flexible. Looking from the user point of view, however, it would be different. The LGPL might be seen as giving more choices to the user as it is not copy-left. And when I mentioned abusive tactics, I meant abusive in the sense of the free software philosophy. The goal of free software movement is to replace all proprietary code with free code. If I let people take advantage of my code without sharing back, I would work against that goal, just making the proprietary world stronger. So even if the tactic is not breaking the terms of a license, I still see it as abusive to the free software.
