I think this is the key: different licences for different markets and needs. Linux needs the GPL, Rails needs MIT, not because one license is better than the ot

I think this is the key: different licences for different markets and needs. Linux needs the GPL, Rails needs MIT, not because one license is better than the other, but because each license enables the success of the project within the target market ecosystem. Perhaps the reasons behind this could be studied more, but I think it comes down to something about how generic the software is, whether it can be extended/used effectively in commercial realms without being unnaturally restricted by the license, and what level/type of contributions are required for the continued success of the project. Both licenses work extremely well for their respective projects. Similarly, I run a GPL project, and I couldn't imagine using a more permissive license, but the product is standalone and the GPL just works well for the situation. This is all making more sense to me now, thanks for your continued thoughts.