> Copyleft isn't how the world works. MIT and Apache and liberal licenses liberate ideas for reuse and practical application in the real world. If you want your

> Copyleft isn't how the world works. MIT and Apache and liberal licenses liberate ideas for reuse and practical application in the real world. If you want your project to be a quirky curiosity visited and abandoned by people searching for some better solution for their problem, use copyleft. Outside of software, copyleft is much closer to how the world works. In the real world, nothing is free, but reciporical agreements are common. Something like a free trade agreement is kind of like a copyleft license. > Forking something from MIT to GPLv3 is disappointing, from this standpoint. How can you both find that disappointing and support MIT licenses at the same time? Feels like contradiction. The entire premise of a BSD/MIT license is that people should have the right to do this.