What sort of incentive would an indie developer who makes his living from sales of his software has to make his library malware and thus not only kill any current and potential future commercial endeavor, but also open himself to lawsuits from his own customers (among others)?
Maybe he wants to make a quick buck off users who don't pay for the source code?
Maybe he's a Latvian sleeper agent looking to infiltrate government software systems to boost the global potato market?
Maybe his machine was in turn infected by malware that's now able to spread via his compilers to any software he in turn compiles, Ken-Thompson-Trusting-Trust-style?
Maybe he sold it to someone else and the new owner is in one or more of the above categories?
These sorts of things happen all the time. Why should I expect this library to be an exception?
I mean, if you want to take that chance, go for it. Personally, given there are numerous other options out there, I'd rather stick to something with a FOSS license and source code that the general public (including myself) can audit (and potentially even maintain, for reasons that I outlined in response to the sibling comment).
No, I don't think I want, now that you've sown a seed of doubt in my mind..
It's just occurred to me that he well might be a covert princess who'll jump out of my laptop, disguised as a frog, and demand me to kiss him in order to dispel the evil spell!
