I guess my post wasn't clear that I was referring to two issues - I assumed the original poster took RMS's comment as "ban closed source from GitHub", and was pointing out that being clear on licensing is not the same thing as being open source only, and that an actual issue this causes for open source software is not-actually-MIT software.
GPL code is essentially "don't-touch-with-a-39-and-a-half-foot-pole source" to most people who want any control over their project or are developing in a professional setting.
I think it's mostly unfounded, but companies do avoid this for reasons other than wanting to directly control their users. I worked for a company where everything was Apache 2, BSD 3-clause, MIT, or similarly licensed. Since we distributed source regardless, this means less control over the users, even though it means they have the freedom to not pass it on to their own users. Our lawyers absolutely lost their shit at the suggestion that we include the GPL. Because a bunch of our customers absolutely lost their shit at the slightest hint of GPL, because they don't want to be sued for unintended virality.
Hear that, folks? In a world that's increasingly focused on sustainability and funding for software development, programmers with business aspirations should take note:
If you're working on something that you hope to (eventually?) make money from, but you also want to benefit from the collegial atmosphere of open source, then choose the GPL. This simple decision instantly eliminates a whole subset of would-be competitors, who you now don't have to worry about undermining your business or otherwise threatening your source of income while they rely on being able to use your own work against you, since the GPL automatically places your work in their do-not-touch category.
The GPL grants significantly more freedom to users. Users of MIT-licensed software don't necessarily even have the freedom to see the source code! All they're guaranteed is the ability to see a credit.
Developers are also users of a piece of software. GPL 3 restricts developers in insane ways where they are forced to contribute back any changes and even worse then that it basically infects all code that it touches. It's almost impossible for a commercial product to use GPL 3 licensed software at all. This is basically tyranny.
> Developers are also users of a piece of software.
This is true, and yet your conversation partner still has the winning answer. The point is that, notwithstanding these restrictions on developers—some of whom have the desire to be able to take without reciprocation—the freedom guaranteed by the GPL to users more than makes up for it. We're essentially talking about local versus global maxima here.
> It's almost impossible for a commercial product to use GPL 3 licensed software at all.
On the contrary—GPL is very beneficial, for the reasons I just laid out in another comment[1]. GPL-licensed code is not ipso facto any harder to commercialize than if you were to make the end result available under MIT. It's arguably even easier, since your competitors will have a more difficult time competing with you than if you'd chosen MIT. As Eben Moglen once put it, if you're trying to decide on a license, then by all means you should go with a permissive one—if you're what you're looking for is "a really good license for your competitor to use"[2].
You need only look to history then compare and contrast it with the industry's current preoccupation with funding the development of free and open source software. Red Hat/Cygnus were largely built on top of GPL code. Meanwhile, today's developers entrenched in the GitHub culture, with its permissive-first obsession with licenses like the MIT, have been bamboozled into working against their own interests by giving away their strongest bargaining chip when they decide to go with the flow instead of choosing the GPL.
Software, in general, has a lot more people using it than writing it. Successful software, anyway.
And super permissive licenses like MIT hurt developers too, because it means I oftentimes can't see the source code that someone else has modified, even though it would help me a lot to be able to do so. With GPL-licensed software, I am always guaranteed this freedom.
Those modifications would probably never have been made if the license was GPL because they would have just rewritten their own entire thing from scratch or licensed something else.
Forcing your users to have to GPL any of their code based on your code is controlling them more than releasing under a more sane permissive license. It's ironic that GPL is the true restriction of freedom for all the virtues it touts.
