Why the restrictive GPLv3 license? This is very unusual for the Node ecosystem, which strongly prefers the perfect MIT license.

For pacifist philosophical reasons, I would never use anything that came with legal threats backed by force. This position is increasingly common, especially for Node developers. The anti-market ideology that was behind the GPL fad has only hurt the Free Software movement, and thankfully it is now in decline.

Just one example, quoting a top node module dev:

I have zero dependencies on GPL modules for that reason and won't use any npm modules that are under the GPL licence. If you like collaboration or want people to use your code you should licence it as MIT, because it's virtually the community standard. (Meteor released with GPL a while back and was hitting back by the community and changed to MIT)

Furthermore, as FreeBSD.org puts it (the modern BSD license being nearly identical to MIT):

Since the BSD license does not come with the legal complexity of the GPL or LGPL licenses, it allows developers and companies to spend their time creating and promoting good code rather than worrying if that code violates licensing.

You can Google for "copyleft harmful", "GPL sucks", "GPL hurts free software", etc to find a lot more arguments from people of many different philosophical backgrounds. You are alienating a significant and growing fraction of your potential users and contributors, many of whom have switched to NodeJS exclusively due to licensing!

No disrespect intended. I hope you won't respond with hostility... It's just such a shame to see a great piece of software not live up to its potential. Obviously the NodeBB devs can do whatever they want, but I (and I'm sure many others) will not use (and thus perhaps seek to rewrite) NodeBB because of this issue.

See the copyfree.org whitelist for a large selection of licenses that are genuine Free Software.