Comment by josteink

> Even with a more permissive license (MIT/BSD) the developer as a user

You're trying to make it complex, but this is really simple.

GPL maximises end user freedom. BSD/MIT maximises developer freedom.

By conflating the two terms ("developer as a user") you are trying to make it seem like you can have it both ways at the same time.

But obviously and rationally there's no way for that to be possible.

When you as a user of product A decides to use your freedom and take that code to create product B, you become the developer of that product.

If product A was GPL licenced, you would be forced to provide your users with the same freedom you were granted. End user freedom preserved.

If it was MIT/BSD licenced, you as a developer could make your product closed source, and as a developer be free to take away freedoms from your end users.

Both are fine options, depending on your point of view. I'm not rating one against the other.

I just don't see how understanding these simple differences can at all be difficult.