I understand the feeling, but I disagree with the conclusions. As an engineer, I leverage copyleft licences like GPL to open source some of my code. If I can t

I understand the feeling, but I disagree with the conclusions. As an engineer, I leverage copyleft licences like GPL to open source some of my code. If I can tell my company "you see, I need to open source that module because the law says so, because it depends on that GPL project", then it makes them at least consider it, and often they accept (because let's be honest, that module is not that important). Similarly, if I fork and fix a bug in a dependency that uses a copyleft licence, I can justify actually contributing back. Note that in both cases I'm abusing the licences: GPL does not say at all that you need to contribute your changes back upstream. But I have been able to convince managers of that easily in the past. Whereas they all know really well that permissive licences pretty much means that they can do whatever they want, and they surely don't want to think about open sourcing anything if there is no need. If you use permissive licences, I lose that argument. So if my company uses your library, you will never hear about it, ever. Regarding my personal projects... well I gave up on the "community" idea long ago: my experience when open sourcing for the sake of helping others is that others will try to abuse me. By pressuring me in all sorts of ways so that they benefit from my free work. I'm done with that. If I open source something, it's for my personal portfolio. But at that point I may as well keep it copyleft, so that maybe it enables other engineers to leverage it in their companies. It's true that LLMs are open source laundering machines, but I would still rather use Linux than vibe-code a kernel. And Linux stays GPLv2.