> I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". My JS canva

> I keep hearing this argument, but I still don't understand, what's the incentive for authors of one-man projects to choose anything "permissive". My JS canvas library is licensed using MIT. From my personal perspective, I wouldn't have any problem with some $MegaCorp coming along and forking it, and even claiming it as their own creation. But ... why? Because one of the main drivers for my development of the library over the past few years is to proof-of-concept the idea that 2D Canvas API based infographics and interactives can be made - with the help of a JS library - performant, responsive and (most importantly!) as accessible to every end user as reasonably possible. My ideal outcome would be to embarrass other JS canvas library maintainers into taking canvas responsiveness and accessibility seriously. If that needs a $MegaCorp to come along and fork the library to bring my dream closer to reality then I ain't gonna stand in their way! Of course I'd still continue to develop my version of the library - it's become my passion and obsession and there's always improvements to be made, new ideas to be explored.