I don't think that argument works. Stealing, for example, is old and common but still impoverishes the community.
Way more people are involved in making closed-source software. MIT license encourages more closed source software, while GPL encourages more open source software. GPL recognizes the conflict and sides with people who contribute.
It's rich calling people using MIT stealing when it's clearly stated in the license terms.
It seems like the GPL people are a vocal minority who want to control what everyone else does with software, while patting themselves on the back about being "true contributors" while...generating much less actual software in practice.
Calling another community "impoverished" which is far larger and produces way more software is also rich.
I think I didn't explain my point well. I don't call people using MIT stealing, it was just an analogy, maybe an unclear one.
Anyway.
> Calling another community "impoverished" which is far larger and produces way more software is also rich.
I don't consider MITL another community from GPL. We all live in the world together.
People who license their software MIT are of course contributing to the open-source community -- in large quantities, as you point out. And that software is useful. The point I'm making is that closed-source software doesn't contribute to the open-source community, and that GPL, more than MIT, encourages open-source over closed source.
> who want to control what everyone else does with software
There is a tradeoff: by exerting a certain amount of control in the "I'll share if you'll share" space, we can get all of the other freedoms in exchange. There are other ways to handle that balance, such as allowing anybody to use stuff without giving back.
Any way we handle it, we'll have to give up some rights in exchange for something. With MIT the tradeoff is implicitly made one way, favoring stronger first-order freedoms via a weaker social contract. With GPL the tradeoff is explicitly written into the license, favoring stronger higher-order freedoms via a stronger social contract.
