> Nowadays it is increasingly likely that my effort is eventually going to be relicensed and repackaged into non-free software without my consent, and no one (n

> Nowadays it is increasingly likely that my effort is eventually going to be relicensed and repackaged into non-free software without my consent, and no one (not even me myself) will be allowed to continue to benefit from my work. The curious thing (and developers have the right) is that permissive licenses, like MIT, are growing every year while copyleft licenses like the GPL are decreasing in popularity. According to a loose Statista graph, ~41% of OSS projects used permissive licenses in 2012. By 2021, it was ~78%. The Register has also noted this phenomenon. Copyleft is completely out of fashion. https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/17/mit_apache_versus_gpl/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/17/mit_apache_versus_gpl... Personally, if I was making a solo OSS project, I completely get it. If Google wants to use it, even if they never gave back, I would be honored and quite possibly get a job from that. Using GPL just means my software will only be useful to GPL-loving compatriots, which is to say, almost nowhere outside the Linux communities. It's also not fair when my company (like most companies) benefitted immensely from various bits of MIT/Apache licensed software, so to give back to the community as a whole with the GPL feels unfair.