u/Fresh-Lie5160

Which do you think is better for development, and engineering: MIT or GPL?

FOr those who dont know:

1. MIT is a license that allows users do anything with the project. Even start a closed buisness with it. modify it, fuck with it, anything really.
2. GPL is a license that provides the same rights as MIT minus the ability to make a closed buisness out of it. That is, any derivitive, must also be made open-source

In my opinion, GPL is superior in most ways, since it avoids companies stealing it, making it better but making it closed source...
But I see why many people choose MIT for free software: More adoption. I mean, as long as the product is being developed, irrelevant of whether its now open or closed - general user interests are being served faster. But that isnt gonna stop community engagement on the repo anyways.

Both these licenses are technically still 'freedom', but just in different ways...
But is the tradeoff worth it?
Is it worth allowing companies to privatize community code if that leads to faster adoption and development?

Ive always hated how most good software - which is supposed to be open so that it can accelerate faster - is always behind the gates of enterprise.

I mean I understand that their motive is money, which is relatable, but i dont understand why i hate this.

And why are (recent) opensource projects not getting that much popularity(aside from huge ones like openclaw) even though their development is much faster than most propreitary and in a few months or so will become better than any.

I feel like an opensource rebellion needs to be started.

Tell me if im wrong in any way...

Ive never seen a bloody README so damn goofy... lol