> MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back since they are free to take the code, modify it, and release it as co

> MIT and BSD are great for takers who like to take from open source and give nothing back since they are free to take the code, modify it, and release it as commercial closed source software (which is usually what happens) Is this from anecdotal evidence, or have you run some sort of valid study? Because my anecdotal evidence says the opposite. MIT licensed software gets more power from being used by companies, especially modern startups and software companies, and consultancies. I've had more attention and source contributions from medium-sized companies than from any individual. The usefulness of my library to these larger companies almost ensures its continued survival. It appears that the rare exception is when companies or individuals don't contribute back. If it's GPL, then yes, they simply wouldn't use it in the first place. And if your experience is mainly with GPL and not MIT/BSD, then you wouldn't have much experience with companies in the first place, because they rightfully won't touch it. And as an employee of a company myself, we use MIT-licensed projects only. We're thankful that most these days are. It enables us to use, modify, and always contribute back to the community. In song form: "You get what you give." The GPL doesn't ensure you get a return on an investment—it ensures that you get only a small sliver of a much larger pie of possible contributions. It's nothing but a roadblock. In short, I really think your assumptions about this are invalid, and based on an idealistic sense of fairness, rather than real-world results which might contradict it. Edit: furthermore, the original linked study also reaches this same conclusion, albeit in more professional terms. It's a changing ecosystem certainly, but the trend is toward more permissive licenses.