code in the slightest. My code is and always will remain freely available, free for all to use and modify and redistribute as they wish. The GPL is not just not promoting freedom for developers. It's *actively destroying it*. That may be desirable or not, but *it is not advancing the cause of freedom*. @Jay Maynard what Winter said. You may prefer freedom for developers, but the FSF is focussed on freedom for users. (They aren't "destroying" freedom though, I don't think.) Which one you prefer depends on you. I have no strong opinion either way (and thus use GPL, LGPL and AGPL, and a permissive license on my stuff, depending on what I feel like at the time). And you are correct that the source code for your MIT licensed stuff is still available, and so a user can always get it from you. Except when they can't (because it's gone, for whatever reason). Or maybe they bought a printer, or a TV box, and now can't modify the source code because of hardware checks (tivoization I think is the term). In such cases, the GPL (in the second case V3) is meant to help protect the user. Whether or not the user or the developer are more important (and often they are one and the same), is a different focus of two ideas. But when Brian Marshall says that the "freedoms" defined by the FSF are in the GPL only, that's wrong. The goals of the FSF are