> To return to the arguments made last night, though copyleft > defends source, in my view this is merely a strategy towards > defending users. And indeed,

> To return to the arguments made last night, though copyleft > defends source, in my view this is merely a strategy towards > defending users. And indeed, as in terms of where freedoms > lie between those who make use of the source and code side of > things vs the end-user-application side of things, one might > notice a trend: there are very few permissively licensed projects > which aim at end users. Most of them are stepping stones towards > further software development. And this is great! I am glad that > we have so many development tools available, and it seems that > permissive/lax licensing is an excellent strategy here. But when > I think of projects I use every day which are programs I actually run > (for example, as an artist I use Blender, Gimp and Inkscape > regularly), most of these are under the GPL. How many truly major > end-user-facing software applications can you think of that > are under permissive licenses? I can think of many under copyleft, > and very few under permissive licenses. This is no coincidence. > Assuming you wish to fight for freedom of the end user, and ensure > that your software remains free for that end user, copyleft > is an excellent strategy. This was the key paragraph from my reading anyways. This is not an argument for / against whichever license, it's an argument that different types of code and projects have different licensing trends, and those probably align with how the code is going to be used and the audience that it's targeting.