You are right about the video, demanding to have it available in at least one free codec would suffice. About the software: Lets say you stop updating your for

You are right about the video, demanding to have it available in at least one free codec would suffice. About the software: Lets say you stop updating your fork after some time, and it fails to run on a newer system, but it is something that someone really wants to use. If he has the source code available he can rebuild it / port it / fix bugs in it and continue to use it even after the original developer abandons it. A somewhat similar idea: I can still run, change, apply security updates for Linux software on a very old laptop (until the hardware eventually breaks) that runs mostly FOSS. But I can't do that on an Android phone that uses proprietary camera/phone/gps/etc. libraries because after some point the vendor stops supporting it and without the source code it is hard to make it run on newer versions of the OS. Had the license been GPL I could've asked for the source code and keep using it. An MIT license would allow more freedom for the vendor (to link/modify use in proprietary applications), but it doesn't require distributing source code so it provides less freedom for the end-user. I think in the end what matters to me are the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline... and the GPL is just one way to ensure freedom #2.