I will try to not drive it to the regular Dokany/WinFSP battle :).
Your problem is definitely the license and according on your own comments you already know that.
Unfortunately for you, you will not fix the problem if you don't change the way you're thinking about commercial products and FOSS on Windows. If this can help you to understand the environment: almost all Dokany contributors are using it for commercial purpose, remember that it was also your case and so is my personal case btw.
Let me explain the license choice (even if it was decided by the previous maintainer, I would have done the same choices here): we use LGPL license for the core/library so it can be used freely on commercial app while we still protect ourselves on unpublished core modification, and MIT license for additional programs (control, samples...) because these doesn't matter and this way it can be used as a starting point for developers.
I believe this is what people are expecting on Windows (FOSS on MAC is generally worth from my experience ^^) ; but of course this means giving it to companies making business on your work. It's part of the deal. I completely understand your position as I'm also using AGPL license for other open source projects I started years ago and for those I didn't want companies to use it freely.
Philosophically, to be open source is already a great decision, then the license decision is yours according to your way of thinking for your project.
"WinFsp has multiple integrated test suites, some of which Dokany uses (with tests missing/disabled)." > really? I'm generally quiet and let Liryna talking but your thread hijacking to promote your product each time there is an official Dokan publication start to be annoying. This test suite was one of your contribution on Dokany before you stopped being involved on the project so of course we are... (it will soon be replaced by another test suite btw). Anyway, let's stop the argument here...
Maxhy, I understand that you are annoyed. Please recall that:
1. The only Dokany thread that I have explicitly mentioned WinFsp is this one (and only after someone else mentioned it). I avoided doing so on your Reddit thread, for example. You may consider that my original message to the Dokany mailing list was promotion, but from my perspective at least it was simply a message to like minded people.
2. That until Lyrina's message(s) in cygwin-apps, where she effectively sabotaged my ITP submission, I was willing to work with Dokany and I said so in a message to the Dokany list.
The truth is that until that ITP submission point I was not bothering anyone and was just working on my project. The only two times that I made comments on Dokany vs WinFsp was when I was explicitly asked: one time by you on the Dokany list and one time on Reddit in WinFsp's own promotion thread.
So I agree with you: let's stop the arguments here. I am willing to stop hijacking threads or trying to sabotage your project's progress. However I also want Dokany to stop insinuating that WinFsp is not being tested (where my argument about the test suites stems from) or sabotage WinFsp's progress.
Unfortunately for you, you will not fix the problem if you don't change the way you're thinking about commercial products and FOSS on Windows. If this can help you to understand the environment: almost all Dokany contributors are using it for commercial purpose, remember that it was also your case and so is my personal case btw.
Let me explain the license choice (even if it was decided by the previous maintainer, I would have done the same choices here): we use LGPL license for the core/library so it can be used freely on commercial app while we still protect ourselves on unpublished core modification, and MIT license for additional programs (control, samples...) because these doesn't matter and this way it can be used as a starting point for developers.
I believe this is what people are expecting on Windows (FOSS on MAC is generally worth from my experience ^^) ; but of course this means giving it to companies making business on your work. It's part of the deal. I completely understand your position as I'm also using AGPL license for other open source projects I started years ago and for those I didn't want companies to use it freely.
Philosophically, to be open source is already a great decision, then the license decision is yours according to your way of thinking for your project.