Well, the rights owner obviously can choose any license without restriction. The recent explosion of 'smart' devices has lead to a significant change in the ratio of creators to users. Compared to the 90s many more creators today feel that users are not doing their part to sustain a copyleft based economy. I'd like to think that these are wrong, but AFAICT there isn't sufficient research on that topic. In this case the author - even after the license change - provides (significant?) parts of the work under a liberal license and the whole work as a 'build it yourself' solution to support fellow programmers (otr at least sufficiently educated users) and is just trying to cut down on support, interestingly specifically for binary linux distribution users. And IMO it is a valid question whether binary distribution users are a PITA. It might very well be that they are. Some parts of the EULA are questionable, but most of the software on this planet is distributed using significantly less friendly conditions. Actually, if Adobe, game studios, etc where distributing their products using these conditions the world would be a significantly better place.