No, it's to preserve freedoms from Stallamn himself. Permissive means, let Stallamn have it. No matter how you want to argue for it, it does this. BSD gets eaten up by GPL. One cannot say they want freedoms, when it allows that to be given away. This a false equivalency, bc some of his terms are needed to preserve freedoms from him, while he goes into viralness. I'm only arguing for something that's a little more than Apache, and preserving rights for use, and to allow people to keep their own code under any license they choose, by linking.This is Stallman-speak. The freedom to choose what one can do with their derivative work is more "fair/moral" than being coerced into sharing. Has the GPL ever even been successfully tried in court anyway? If the point of open source is “freedom”; there no free-er license than the BSD license. Developers write code; there's little incentive for open source when ones behavior is dictated IMO. WIth the GPL, you're trading liberty for the possibility or concern of preventing commercial exploitation.. not my cup of tea.
All else is just politics.
GPL forces one to give up contributions. I'm arguing for allowing people to keep their contributions, which is opposed to GPL. I'm arguing for using a library or dependency with anything, and making it so their programs outside of that zone can't be forced up. They know the limits to the licenses extent, as it's clear unlike GPL which can get into anything.
My argument is against the GPL. GPL forces all to give up their works. I'm arguing for a license which you can keep your works under any license, so long as it's outside a directory. GPL's viralness is to eat it up like a virus, and forcing permissive code into it without restriction.
GPL= you used any of our code, It's mine.
Weak copy left= keep your code under your license. As long as it's outside of our authored code or directory.
MPL and CDDL have to be incompatible or jump through hoops for GPL.
ISC even switched from ISCL to MPL2, because they got tired of people using their works and not giving contributions back. MPL was the right balance for them, so users got to keep their own programs without being forced to give up their own works to them. They had to give back improvements to their own authored code, but that's good. It didn't force up other code not at all stewarded under ISC. That's a good balance of freedom.
It doesn't make sense to say something way better than GPL is bad, while arguing for something which allows GPL or worse to eat it up.
As long as there's a big enough organization to steward permissive code for big projects, it will work ok. There aren't many big projects. For smaller code bases and libraries for all use, permissive licenses work too. The license I'm for, preserves code without needing such a big organization, and it allows better preservation of that code as well, meant for circumstances. For wide use libraries, permissive may be best.