> The fact that it would take several man-years to replicate a large GPL project is enough of a deterrence.
So what? Proprietary softwares have said similar words enough.
> The GPL ensures that those freedoms are upheld for any single body of work or any works derived from that work.
Okay, this is the only big difference, the "virus". I can use MIT to fight GPL.
> With an MIT license, it doesn't take any effort to make the code proprietary and thus violate both of the points you made.
My two points above are mainly for GPL. For MIT, that will be:
1. Our open-source softwares are used by more and more people, welcome to contribute if you don't want to see our softwares running everywhere with bugs in your operating system.
2. Our open-source softwares are great and free of charge.
3. Welcome to use our code for your proprietary softwares, dude. There are more and more open-source developers waiting for you.
So what? Proprietary softwares have said similar words enough.
> The GPL ensures that those freedoms are upheld for any single body of work or any works derived from that work.
Okay, this is the only big difference, the "virus". I can use MIT to fight GPL.
> With an MIT license, it doesn't take any effort to make the code proprietary and thus violate both of the points you made.
My two points above are mainly for GPL. For MIT, that will be:
1. Our open-source softwares are used by more and more people, welcome to contribute if you don't want to see our softwares running everywhere with bugs in your operating system.
2. Our open-source softwares are great and free of charge.
3. Welcome to use our code for your proprietary softwares, dude. There are more and more open-source developers waiting for you.