Exactly. The choosalicense site is designed to be neutral enough to avoid overt bias. It wouldn't work if it didn't appear neutral. But it is not neutral. Firs

Exactly. The choosalicense site is designed to be neutral enough to avoid overt bias. It wouldn't work if it didn't appear neutral. But it is not neutral. First of all, it says that the main default simplest license should be the permissive one. It chooses that first on purpose. Second, they say that you should use Apache if you care about patent issues when actually GPLv3 is arguably superior for that. So, they worked to actively relegate GPL to the last choice. And you picked out the small text. The big text is "I care about sharing improvements" — what does that mean? It's much more wishy-washy than "I want to block the code from being used in proprietary projects" or "I want to require that derivatives stay free". The motivation behind the GPL is about freedom, not about improvements. But GitHub doesn't want to talk about freedom, they only want to talk about code improvements. Anyway, it's already aggressive to encourage people to use GPLv2 instead of GPLv3, given that v3 specifically closes loopholes that GPLv2 has. Anyway, it's not a lie… watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAAlPXB2-c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAAlPXB2-c to hear the GitHub co-founder explicitly tell people to reject the GPL in the very presentation in which he announced the choosealicense site.