A fair number of FOSS licenses were interpreted this way. The popular migration away from GPLv3 (might’ve been v4?) towards MIT, LGPL, etc had more than one cause (a huge one was the rapid sectoral commercialization; the decline of RMS’s reputation may have contributed, etc), but a big one was the potential interpretation of new GPL as being overly viral and “license-infecting” only slightly related software assets rather than wholly derivative ones.
For me, it's the latter: the GPL feels overbearing and patronizing, and I don't want some dependency to dictate under which terms I can release my own software. I pay the community back by using MIT whenever I open-source something. This feels more "free" than RMS's view of freedom.
I know that many people would disagree with me on this, but thankfully I'm free to choose what license I consider "free".
> I don't want some dependency to dictate under which terms I can release my own software.
Then you shouldn't release it under the MIT license, which has restrictions and requirements on speech. You have to release it to the public domain. Pretending MIT doesn't dictate terms under which you can release your own software is just a fantasy.
I know that many people would disagree with me on this, but thankfully I'm free to choose what license I consider "free".
Then you shouldn't release it under the MIT license, which has restrictions and requirements on speech. You have to release it to the public domain. Pretending MIT doesn't dictate terms under which you can release your own software is just a fantasy.
But please don't forget about the users. Only the copyleft licenses guarantee (legally) that the user gets to enjoy the freedoms, too.