Comment by Ace17

> I would argue that the condition that you provide sources to your users is something you owe the author. But perhaps I'm over-philosophical.

No, I think you're right.

But you only owe it to the author if you're a "distributor". If you're a "user" (=a human who interacts with an application), you don't owe her anything.

The GPL keeps the distinction between the "users" and the "distributors".

This is important, because they have different interests ; They can't both simultaneously have complete freedom to do what they want.

If the "distributors" have the freedom not to redistribute the source code, then the "users" lose their freedom to study and modify the program (or to have it studied/modified by anyone competent - even software companies sometimes hire consultants to modify free software they don't feel like modifying themselves).

Basically:

- the GPL says to the users "do what you want", and says to the distributors "let the users do what they want (which implies: let them have the source code)".

- The MIT says to everyone "do what you want" (I'm omitting the copyright notice stuff here for brevity)

Thus, the MIT blurs this distinction "user"/"distributor" - which is fine, but creates lots of confusion when people try to understand the rationale behind the copyleft (leading to nonsensical reasonning like "there are things I can't do so GPL is less free!").