I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.
No, it doesn’t result in less open source. It results in more proprietary. You have the same amount of open source as before and didn’t LOSE anything. The MIT License allows for stuff that wouldn’t be possible otherwise and it is easier to understand and teach too. I argue that using MIT does not automatically or mostly result in worse outcomes than if they used GPL. Mostly it works fine.
That does not mean MIT is perfect. Like every license, it has its own strengths and weakness and should be considered like any other license. Also you can still go from MIT to GPL, in case you change your mind later and want to enforce GPL on any project based on it, but not other way round.
Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
Because the license has other strengths as well. Also usually and in most cases its not even a problem. And in case of the Rust coreutils, its not like as if there was no alternative like the original coreutils. So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.
I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.
No, it doesn’t result in less open source. It results in more proprietary. You have the same amount of open source as before and didn’t LOSE anything. The MIT License allows for stuff that wouldn’t be possible otherwise and it is easier to understand and teach too. I argue that using MIT does not automatically or mostly result in worse outcomes than if they used GPL. Mostly it works fine.
That does not mean MIT is perfect. Like every license, it has its own strengths and weakness and should be considered like any other license. Also you can still go from MIT to GPL, in case you change your mind later and want to enforce GPL on any project based on it, but not other way round.
Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.
Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.
Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.
Not using the GPL can result in less open source.
As said, its not less open source than before. Its just not more.
OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?
Because the license has other strengths as well. Also usually and in most cases its not even a problem. And in case of the Rust coreutils, its not like as if there was no alternative like the original coreutils. So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.
And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.