@coolboymew @alex gnutards will find conspiracy theories everywhere. If you coded in C or C++ and any modern language you are probably all too well aware of the insane gap of QoL and bug surface between them. People wanted to toss out C++ 20 years ago and this only increased with time; there's no conspiracy or corpo push needed for most of developers to jump onto a sensible replacement once it finally appeared. Many of those developers work at corps so corps jump on it too, no surprises there.
@coolboymew @alex I was only talking about how unnecessary and therefore unlikely a conspiracy/intentional push is, the license flame war is a whole another can of worms.
But if I am to touch that topic I'm of the opinion that MIT-like licenses are the main contributor to the open source boom we witnessed in the past decade. You may not like it but day-job developers are the biggest workforce. Without GPL companies are actually willing to use open source projects and since maintaining a fork is more effort they do contribute back. In fact the claim that we get no contributions back is silly when for example the entire front-end ecosystem is driven by corp developers. (Which might be one of the reasons it's so shit but that's beside the point.) If gnutards had their way it basically wouldn't exist and every company would be cooking up its own variant of shitty in-house frameworks.
MIT popularised open source incomparably better than a bunch of neckbeards unsuccessfully whining about freedom for decades at that point, and redirected a significant part of employed developers' effort from in-house to open source and collaboration. That's a huge win in my book.
A license that is trying to grab companies by the throat and force them to contribute is pointless without the means to actually grab them by the throat and force them to even accept it. Linux did it because it's so huge and complex that developing an alternative in-house isn't feasible. It's an exception, not the rule.
