Because the license has other strengths as well.

What are it’s strengths?

So having an alternative that can be used easier in other software where GPL is a bit problematic is not a bad thing.

The GPL is only problematic when used alongside proprietary software, something we want to avoid. So far people have used the original coreutils for decades and it hasn’t been a problem.

If the GNU+linux operating software shifts towards a permissive license (like MIT) it makes way for companies such as Red Hat and Canonical to start making proprietary operating systems. This would be a massive shame to Linux since the whole community benefits a lot from their contributions.

And the MIT License isn’t giving up on more Open Source too. So there is an opportunity.

I described earlier exactly why the MIT license is giving up on open source software so allow me to repeat myself.

Think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

OK sure, but why should we give away an opportunity to get more open source software?

Not nessesarily think about comparing macos with aosp.

Since android used linux which is licensed under the GLP they had to make it open source and they contributed back to the open source community.

Macos on the other hand used a lot of software from freebsd and other bsd projects. Since freebsd isn’t free software macos never contributed back to the community since they didn’t have to.

Not using the GPL can result in less open source.

I argue that using MIT will mostly result in a worse outcome than the GPL since our goal should always be having as much FOSS software as possible. Allowing people to make proprietry software from open source software results in less open source software.

No. I’m talking about the free software foundations definition of free software. The mit license is an open source licence, not a free software license.

Anyway, I’m interested as to why you don’t think the MIT license is worse than the GPL.

Because it isn’t a free software license. Software licensed by the MIT license can be copied and made into proprietary software. Since (I hope) we agree proprietary software should be minimised licensing under a free software license ensures big tech can’t make there own corporate software from it without ever giving back.

But what if you forget? Why risk it when you don’t have to? There is no shame in not remembering and needing to write it down. If you always remember than that’s good for you but a lot of people don’t.

Why don’t you think the MIT license is bad?

Why would you? You won’t be able to replicate the custom hardware, drivers and software. Why not just build an sff pc?

Headscale is great but requires port forwarding which, aside from having its own iasues, is something op wants to avoid.

Cheap domains are basically free though so it doesn’t count!