A code author/owner has every right to set conditions for using their code, if they want you to open your code in return for using their open code then I see that as a perfectly reasonable condition, be it a library or not.

Yes, I agree. But that doesn't mean I have to like it. I don't look twice at a GPL library as it is of no use to me.

And you are not forced to use a GPL licensed library, worst case scenario you will have to write your own implementation if you refuse the license.

Of course - I don't mind that either. If I did write my own implementation, I would use a permissive license. :-)

I would not mind if my library was used in a project where the source code isn't available. Commercial or freeware.

It is.

No. If I distribute my project using something like MIT or BSD, and decide to use libreadline. I need to make the whole project available under the GPL. I could still dual license my code using a permissive license, assuming it doesn't involve the GPL library. But as a whole the project would be constrained by the GPL.

And this is a deal-breaker, since GPL exists for the purpose of granting (and preserving) certain rights to the end user which in turn are denied by proprietary software.

I think it's up to the developer whether the source code should be available or not. The end user has the choise of not using my program, and that is fine too. I want to have the option of releasing something as freeware. The GPL denies me that freedom.

That's why I only use permissive licensed libraries, and that's why I license my code the same. I publish the source code under conditions I agree with, and I want people to use it in anyway they please. It's just code.

Like I said in my first post, I don't mind when the GPL is used in applications. There's a huge difference between an application and a library when it comes to reusability.