Context:
Permissive licenses (commonly referred to as "cuck licenses") like the MIT license allow others to modify your software and release it under an unfree license. Copyleft licenses (like the Gnu General Public License) mandate that all derivative works remain free.
Andrew Tanenbaum developed MINIX, a modular operating system kernel. Intel went ahead and used it to build Management Engine, arguably one of the most widespread and invasive pieces of malware in the world, without even as much as telling him. There's nothing Tanenbaum could do, since the MIT license allows this.
Erik Andersen is one of the developers of Busybox, a minimal implementation of that's suited for embedded systems. Many companies tried to steal his code and distribute it with their unfree products, but since it's protected under the GPL, Busybox developers were able to sue them and gain some money in the process.
Interestingly enough, Tanenbaum doesn't seem to mind what intel did. But there are some examples out there of people regretting releasing their work under a permissive license.
There's a fair bit of bias in those terms, which make GPL seem like a 'better' choice than an unrestricted license like MIT.
The truth is, GPL is restrictive to developers. Copying just one line from a gpl-licensed project will automatically restrict you to using only gpl-compatible licenses. I'd prefer to advocate for LGPL and similar licenses, as they seem to offer a better tradeoff between user and developer freedom.
GPLs "restrictions" are freedom preserving though. It only restricts developers from keeping dirivitive code proprietary. In order to violate the GPL you'd have to choose to use GPL code and then choose not to release your modified versions of it under a similar copyleft license. It may seem counterintuitive, but having those restrictions results in more software freedom overall - similar to the paradox of intolerance.
I'm not saying MIT or so called permissive licenses are bad, but the permissive/restrictive language is just as loaded as the OPs suggestions. Both styles are needed, but copyleft licenses are better at promoting software freedom.
Edit: I do agree with you that LGPL serves an important role in promoting free/libre software where it would otherwise would never be used.
There's a fair bit of bias in the terms "restrictive" and "permissive", which make MIT seem like a 'better' choice than a give-and-take license like GPL.
The truth is, MIT is risky for developers. Using just one line from an MIT-licensed project will automatically allow others to exploit your work without giving back. I'd prefer to advocate for balanced licenses that protect both user and developer interests.
Ha, maybe I should have licensed my comment.
You’re wrong though.
Using code from an MIT licensed project will not allow others to exploit your work. MIT is compatible with almost all other licenses, so you can incorporate the code without needing to relicense your project.
If you meant that choosing to license your entire project with MIT would allow others to exploit your work, then yes, that’s the whole point of the license.
For some small projects, I’m completely fine with throwing it out into the world with no expectation of anything in return.
If a company ends out using my 50-line file conversion tool in their commercial product, I see that as a bonus thing to put on my résumé.