Yes? That's the point of the article. The mops nickle and dime you to death "Why aren't you using the MIT license? The GPL isn't really an open source license.

Yes? That's the point of the article. The mops nickle and dime you to death "Why aren't you using the MIT license? The GPL isn't really an open source license. How can it be about freedom when it forces me to do things?". The psychopaths just extract all the value. At any rate all the current open source licenses are meant for the 80s or 90s. Freedom zero is only for people, not corporations. The only sane license I've seen for the modern world was this rework of the MIT license: Copyright <YEAR> <COPYRIGHT HOLDER> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any natural person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software to other natural persons without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit natural persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.